User talk:Soetermans

Official Screenplay

How is adding official screenplays in the external links "unnecessary and inappropriate"? ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 13:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

What makes is appropriate? What makes it necessary? Wikipedia is written for a large audience, not for people even remotely familiar with the subject of the articles. See WP:MOSFILM. People can look up stuff themselves as well. It's just spammy at this point. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I have only added them to the films which have been nominated for Oscars BP and Screenplay nominations as it has been done sometimes in the past like Avatar and Titanic, Both of which are Good Articles. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 13:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Re:February 2025

What do you mean? I didn't commit there any vandalism. Szturnek_¿? 14:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Don't play cutesy. Your edit is downright vandalism. President of USA, [[Donald Trump and fascism|Donald Trump]], announces that the United States will take control of the Gaza Strip in an agreement with Israel. and it is unnecessary edit summary. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

First - I really didn't know what you meant by vandalism, because you wrote it in such a way as if I had done several vandalisms - but you're only referring to one edit out of four. I thought you meant that my edits weren't in perfect English, or something like this.

Second - I probably missclicked it, because I didn't remember that. Aslo Donald Trump and fascism appears in the list when you want to add a link to Donald Trump.

Third - even if you assume bad faith on my part, my edit still wasn't a big act of vandalism. If you want see a real vandalism, look to this edit that was made 15 minutes after my suposed vandalism. Szturnek_¿? 16:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

See

I am willing to hear your opinion. Engage01 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Don't revert the entire edit.

Dont revert the entire edit if you feel the term "definite" is still unnecessary, despite scholars suggesting to use this term. You may remove the "definite" part, manually. I have resolved some grammatical inaccuracies too, so dont revert the entire edit, please read it entirely before reverting it. Amulya asmi (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thai baht

Reading on my mobile, I misunderstood which was the original and which was the correction. And got them wrong way round. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Canadian American

Canadian American - "citizens of either country who hold dual citizenship" Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

You can use Talk: Michael J. Fox to discuss the article. At least two people disagree. Thanks. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I did and an entire RfC disagreed.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say I was being disruptive

It doesn't really matter, but it really rubbed me the wrong way, so I just wanted to state on record that I disagree with your characterization. I had tried two weeks ago to add some information about Kieran Culkin's Oscar speech and when I got reverted, I took it to the talk page and it sat there for two weeks without pushback.

So, then I tried again two weeks later (present day) and got reverted again by *the same person* who this time said I didn't have to include the whole speech (with them not having given any edit summary when they'd reverted two weeks prior). So, I tried to put it back, telling them it's nowhere near the whole speech, only what was re-printed in secondary sources and they could shorten it if they wanted. At at which point you stepped in and reverted me completely instead of just shortening it. You said "others" disagree, but at that point, there was there was me and *one* person. You framed it, in my opinion, as though I was arguing with everybody when in reality, as far as I know at the time time, *one* person was opposed and I had already tried the talk page (and didn't know I was supposed to tag them, so lesson learned on that front).

After you reverted me, I knew not to try the exact same edit again. But I tried again a different one that was shorter and more to the point, to try to address the length issue that seemed to be at play and you immediately reverted me, even though I was trying to fix the issue. You said I was being "disruptive." But, because to my knowledge, I'd already taken it to the talk page (again, not realizing the tagging thing which obv affected things), maybe I was under the impression that *they* were being disruptive for not talking to me on the talk page, and for not initially explaining their reversion in the edit summary, and for being very quick to revert instead of trying to refine additions.

I read the Wikipedia disruptive page to see what that means to you here. But after seeing the options on the page, I still disagree with being labeled that way. I was not going against a consensus (as one had not been built, and no one had jumped in on the talk page to refute the proposed edit when I'd put it there initially to *try* to build one). I was genuinely trying to 'play by all the rules'. I wasn't pushing a POV. Everything was properly sourced with very reliable sources. I understand that maybe I didn't understand all the nuances of how to deal with this (e.g. not realizing I was supposed to tag the editor on the talk page, and I doubt I'll forget that again after this) and maybe I didn't do it perfectly, but I think "disruptive" is an incorrect characterization.

Basically, I hope you consider the labels you use and ways you talk to people who are acting in good faith. It would've been just as easy to say something like, "you're supposed to tag people when you make a topic on the talk page. That's why this is still an issue for you two weeks later. Please try again on the talk page, using this shorter edit, and keeping tagging in mind to build consensus before implementing" or anything even remotely along those lines, actually educating me on some part of the process I was missing (since it seems like no matter how much documentation on wikipedia policies I read, there's always more, so it's not like I was actively trying not to know) as opposed to brushing me off or acting like I was maliciously doing something wrong. The more curt we are with bad faith assumptions, the more we risk losing editors on Wikipedia.

Obviously, as you're aware, the Oscar speech stuff is being discussed on the talk page now. So I don't need anything else in terms of a resolution on that page specifically, because that will work itself out or not. So, this isn't about that I just wanted to register that I personally heavily disagree with your characterization of me being disruptive, even though I'm sure I haven't changed your mind about it, which is your opinion. I only wrote this to say I hope you just consider ways you want to phrase things/how you want to interact with editors trying their best in the future. (Even just consider considering that.) But that's obviously up to you. You'll consider it or you won't. I highly doubt I'll have anything more to say to this if you respond as I don't prefer to talk about this any further (but I know you're free to express your opinion if you wish, since I just got ample space to express mine, especially since this is your talk page). I just wanted to put this out there, and you can take it or leave it however you want. Have a nice day. Wikipedian339 (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of John Shahidi for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Shahidi (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Stablecoin (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Aix-la-Chapelle

Hi Sebastiaan. To respond to your last edit on Aachen: the term traditional English, which was used on the page for years until someone removed it without justification in 2024, is a reference to what was the English name of the town for the greater part of the last 300+ years. As noted in my edit description, it is therefore integral part of the English historiography of Aachen. See for example, the corresponding EB article: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Aix-la-Chapelle Jouvencel (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jouvencel, sorry my late reply. Saw your message while I was busy and forgot about it, apologies. I've reinstated the bold part and changed traditionally to historically. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Accident edit

Sorry for my edit in Solange Knowles because I added a manual citation instead a note and thats why I got confused with the "[1]" on it, not a note or a letter. I acknowledge your edits as you have the rights below your username. Thank you and Happy Thursday Keke Palmer fan (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Keke Palmer fan, I didn't revert your edit not because of any typographical errors, it's that WP:IMDB is considered unreliable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Be aware

The argument in Portugal should be discussed on talk, not in edit war in live pagespace. I'm warning everybody, so don't take it personally. BusterD (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi BusterD, Consuela9890 (talk · contribs), as it turns out, created Oos88 (talk · contribs), a sleeper account, in July 2020, which started editing the day they were blocked. That was a block evasion. They were blocked before for edit warring, now they're back at it again. I'm not particularly familiar with the subject of Portugal, but I know a bad faith edit when I see it. What would you rather see me have done? I'm happy to receive any feedback. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand. I trusted your reversion was appropriate. I have a boatload of trust in you. Wondered why you never applied for the mop. I also suspected Oos88 was a coordinated, if not socked, account. But I learned a long time ago that if I call shenanigans on any edit war, it's best to include all potential participants, per AGF (and ANI). I intentionally waited to say anything on Oos88's talk because I suspected someone quicker than I would put the SPI together. I'm sorry if these two sentences irritated you in the least; I was doing what I considered my due diligence. FTR, why have you never run for sysop? You're a rock. BusterD (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

To speak frankly, I deal with a lot of disrupters in my daily work here. I have learned to read the code by sheer vast experience, just as you have. I have found always demonstrating good faith (as best as I might) is a superior platform upon which to build later discussion. Lately, I'll confess I'm seeing a larger amount of intentional disruption. The April 1st thing is always an irritation to me. Fortunately wikipedians share positive and calibrated social norms (and editors around for almost 20 years like you and I). Sometimes I feel as a sysop like I wield a flyswatter. I must trust my fellow wikipedians to keep the doors and windows closed. BusterD (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

My apologies.

I didnt realize that redirecting Certified lover boy from Not Like us to drake was inapporiate- as the line is directed towards drake. I wont do it again, however. TzarN64 (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Ants in the Pants Edit War

I see you have been reverting apparently good faith (and factually correct) edits by User:ConsoleKnights78. Regardless of their banned status, I don't understand the reason for reverting the edits. If there is something wrong with them you could fix them instead. Can you explain, please? Sedimentary (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sedimentary, ConsoleKnights78 is another sock puppet by FarhanNaufal5 (talk · contribs), who has had at least nine accounts — excluding IP addresses (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FarhanNaufal5/Archive). Yesterday, in the course of 32 minutes, they rapidly made 43 edits. It's a question of WP:BLOCKREVERT: with such continuous disruptive behaviour, it's hard and time consuming to tell what is and what is not a constructive edit by them. In my opinion, it's best to revert any they made regardless, because they're not suited for Wikipedia. Hope this helps. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)