User talk:Starship.paint

SEMI-RETIRED

due to real life

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of 2022.

Happy New Year, Starship.paint!

Happy New Year!

Starship.paint,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Starship.paint: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Splitting discussion for George Pell

An article that been involved with (George Pell) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Name to be decided). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. _MB190417_ (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer 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/Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer 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.

Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Adrian Adonis with rose.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Adrian Adonis with rose.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer

On 14 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to media outlet WLOS, surveillance footage appears to contradict the initial police account of the shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer at his home in Murphy, North Carolina? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Laptop

What was this about? I was responding to TFD's assertion as to what "we believed". There's no problem presenting a contrary possibility on the talk page. It's not article text. Maybe the rhetorical device was too indirect, certainly it appears for Ernie, but I would not have expected such a response from you. The point was that there are large swaths of text on that page that do not follow the sources. There is no source that verifies the existance of a laptop, e.g. I'm only bugging you about this because I have no doubt that your comment will empower those who continue to push such unverified text. Cheers SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

FYI Mr Ernie (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - I think there are enough sources that accept the existence of the laptop. We can disagree on that. starship.paint (exalt) 00:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I have been surprised to find, when I go back and read the cited sources very closely, that the recent ones are careful to attribute or qualify their statements. I had taken the recent NY Magazine bit as a valid example of a source that reported the Mac Isaac narrative as fact. But I was surprised to see that they're actually reporting it as a tale while acknowledging that we currently don't know whether Mac's tale is correct. It's interesting that the extended Fox News RfC at RSN appears to show a decisive willingness to discard unsubstantiated political content such as the Murdoch's are prone to publish. Many of the editors who personally believe in Fox and Fox-adjacent narratives seem to have become more careful in their evaluations of sourcing and narratives, including the understandable but flawed practice of googling to cherrypick RS that are consistent with parts of Fox's stories. This will all be resolved in time. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 12:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Mistaken non-ping

I meant to ping you on this edit, but, clearly, failed. Sorry about that!--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The meta-question is clearly prior to any particular choices. Putting it within the poll, -- rather than my initial temporary hatting of the poll -- was a compromise solution. It clearly does not belong after all the !votes as an afterthought, so I am asking you to reinstate it up top as an option in the poll. Placing it after the entire poll as if it were a comment is not appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

As I see it, SPECIFICO's poll is, essentially, a request for an early closure (and scrapping) of your poll. I don't really see why that needs to be up top, but, given that you started the poll, I think, absent some consensus otherwise, you should have say as to where it goes.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not a request to close. It is a request to conduct a poll after there is some agreement as to what the poll should contain. That was the problem the previous poll had, and the result in such cases is always that the poll becomes fragmented without a solid outcome. Please restore the meta-question to its location, where the group can decide whether to formalize the discussion at this time or to workshop the decision more on talk. We made some progress previously and this premature poll is not helpful right now. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for notifying me of your issues, @Jerome Frank Disciple, SPECIFICO, and Space4Time3Continuum2x: Unfortunately, I am rather busy at this time to edit much, and defer to the judgment of other editors on such issues. starship.paint (exalt) 23:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Shooting of Aderrien Murry

The notability is in this case not about the number of sources, but about whether it will be a news event only, or something with WP:SUSTAINED coverage. If the latter is lacking, then it isn't a notable subject, no matter how many good sources you have. Fram (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Fram: - OK then we will have to wait for however long sustained may be. starship.paint (exalt) 12:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Signing

Gaah. I've gotten so used to the auto-sign feature of the new reply tool (and many other newer scripts), I find I'm often forgetting to manually add my signature when I need to. Thanks for covering for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• @RoySmith: - you should thank voorts [1], who noticed you didn't sign your post, but didn't notice that you were the closer, meanwhile, I did actually read your close, but I actually didn't notice that you didn't sign it. starship.paint (exalt) 14:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Helping Star

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Thanks for the user talk page help! Springee (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Happy to help, Springee! starship.paint (exalt) 06:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Blurb

I've added a nom on In the news - not totally sure about the blurbs; any thoughts/want to tweak? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit of a balancing act of length vs clarity. New blurbs might be precise, but a bit wordy ... Iskandar323 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: - I'm not sure how to cut it down. We can let others suggest a shorter blurb? Thanks for the nomination and the credit. starship.paint (exalt) 07:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jason Chee (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jason Chee (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shooting of Aderrien Murry

Hello! Your submission of Shooting of Aderrien Murry 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 at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mhhossein ^talk 07:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Essay critique

I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:

• User:Valjean/Wikipedia's credibility

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer 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/Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer (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.

Oaktree b (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Shooting of Aderrien Murry

On 15 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shooting of Aderrien Murry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that police in Indianola, Mississippi, shot an unarmed 11-year-old African-American boy after responding to his 9-1-1 call for help at his home? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Aderrien Murry. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Shooting of Aderrien Murry), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,536 views (711.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

r/place source

Hello! I have seen that you removed this primary source from the r/place article. Now, I know secondary sources are preferred, but in this case I believe that the primary source can be kept. If you were to check the secondary source from "the guillotine" part, you can see that it used one similar Reddit post as its source (this one). Also, though used less, in some cases primary sources can still be used on Wikipedia (see WP:PRIMARY). Of course, if a secondary source covering this appears, we can replace the primary one. Thank you! Alin2808 (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Alin2808: - if you cannot find any secondary (or tertiary) reliable sources, it will not meet WP:DUE. The information is not significant enough for independent sources to cover. There are thousands of Reddit posts. Why is this one important? Reliable sources help us determine what is important and what is not. Wikipedia does not document every single instance of anti-spez content just because it existed, we rely on reliable sources to highlight specific important content. starship.paint (exalt) 13:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say if the guillotine is significant, then so is this. Otherwise, people would think that the guillotine was the only 'controversial' drawing that was removed (though of course we can't prove if it was the admins that removed it). Alin2808 (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Alin2808: - that cannot override WP:DUE. If controversial drawings being censored is an important event, reliable sources would discuss it. If you cannot find any, it means it is not important. starship.paint (exalt) 14:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Still think it is worth mentioning for the reasons I gave above. But sure, I will be waiting for other sources to discuss it. Surely if a source specifically talking about the protest on r/place comes up it's bound to get mentioned along with the French and the Italian ones. Alin2808 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

24-BRD violation -- Donald Trump rape

Hello Starship.
You've violated the 24-BRD page restriction at Donald Trump by repeating your addition of content concerning the details of Trump's sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll. The sequence is

1. Addition of "fingers" detail - here.
2. Addition is reverted - removal, with edit summary.
3. Repeat addition of the detail same "fingers" text.

Please self-revert you reinstatement of that content and use the article talk page if necessary. This wording is UNDUE and unencyclopedic detail for the main Trump page and it comes off as rather salacious, irrelevant, and weird when the central fact is that the judge found that her rape statement was reasonable and that Trump continued to defame her.
Thanks SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Help with Wikipedia policies?

I noticed that User:Jerome Frank Disciple retired after suffering a number of things, including accusations and incivility by User:SPECIFICO. I wanted to raise concerns because I believe User:SPECIFICO pattern of behavior often results in editors getting discouraged/abandoning.

You seem both experienced and familiar with SPECIFICO, so you seemed like the right person to go to in helping.

What I've noticed

I believe he may be engaged in WP:BRD misuse or WP:BRRR. I'm not sure: I'm not very experienced, so there may be a different way to interpret the pattern.

1. Excessive reverts of good edits

2. Quality of talk page discussion

3. Bad-faith and excessive warnings on user talk pages

NPOV-pushing can be more subjective, so I'm trying to focus solely on the meta-pattern of behavior. More specifically:

Detail

1. At times he has been an extremely frequent reverter for a number of significant pages, including hot-topic issues like Hunter Biden laptop controversy, Donald Trump.

2. These reverts seem excessive not just by their quantity, but because they are not thought out or are willfully ignorant of the specifics: e.g. [2] he reverted an edit that was supported by reliable statements because there were additional sources that were not reliable; he could have simply removed the unreliable source. He reverts an edit here [3] because it is a "primary source"; however, the primary source is justifying the statement "[Source] stated [statement]". The fact that he makes frequent reference to them suggests that he is not unfamiliar with them; when it misapplies them, it looks less like a misunderstanding and more like intentional misuse.

3. He posts an excessive number of talk-page warnings, many of which seem designed to intimidate, especially new users, and makes serious false accusations "by mistake" In the last month alone: [4] [5] [6]

4. He makes frequent reference to WP policies as justification in situations where they do not apply.

5. He has an extremely active and direct style. This is normally good, but when a reasonable fraction of edits are non-constructive, it can overwhelm normal discourse. When his directness is factored in, it can emotionally drain editors.

6. A long-time editor redited because of his accusations[7] and incivility[8]

Possible BRD misuse

Put together, it begins to look like not the intended use of BRD:

1. He makes an excessive number of reverts, not all of which are well-considered, in order to force discussion onto the talk page.

2. His reverts are often based on "no consensus" and/or "mistaken" application of WP rules, without opening talk page discussions.

3. On the talk page, he does not always engage in the best, substantive discussion, but seems to try to holds off the achievement of what he sees as "consensus". Sometimes he is constructive, but frequently he does not refute central points.

4. He makes frequent reference to the WP:BRP cycle to "educate" users, e.g.: [9]

5. In pursuit of ad-hominem, he posts an unreasonable number of warnings and accusations on other user's talk pages.

A good edit cycle means discussion. However, when this style is excessively and selectively applied, it begins to look like WP:BRD misuse.

I'm not sure how to put this all together: perhaps you have a better interpretation of what is going on.

What to do?

Four days after this user joined Wikipedia, he ended up on ANI for edit warring. [10] He has been topic-banned and wiki-banned repeatedly. However, as soon as bans expire, he seems to act the same way as before. Editing Wikipedia is usually a pleasant experience; today it was not, and I think many editors feel the same way after interacting with him. It's too bad the process allows this to happen.

Frankly, I found it exhausting, so I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• @DenverCoder19: - I am rather busy in real life and will address this when I am more free. Take care. starship.paint (exalt) 04:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• @DenverCoder19: - I've reviewed your evidence and as it stands, your evidence is not strong enough. You need stronger evidence of misconduct, and there are some things you have misunderstood. starship.paint (exalt) 06:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Details #1, 4 and 5 needs actual evidence.
  • (2a) Detail #2, on MSNBC, I suppose you are referring to this [11], is AdWeek reliable? I'm not sure, and anyway this can be passed of as a simple mistake.
  • (2b) Detail #2, on Nassim Nicholas Taleb [12], this is actually a good edit. Information on Wikipedia should be WP:DUE, based on reliable secondary sources, not just anything a person, even the article subject, posts on Twitter.
  • (3a, 3b) Detail #3, warning DarrellWinkler and ElijahPepe with a blue box is fine if they have not been warned with a blue box on the same topic within the past one year.
  • (3c) Detail #3, talk post message for Dissident93, I would say SPECIFICO is correct, the WP:ONUS is on those who want to include disputed content to achieve consensus. It does not seem that SPECIFICO exhaustively explained their actions for reverting, but then again a talk page discussion was never started by Dissident93. ** (6a) Detail #6, the incivility, I believe, was responded to by the community with a one-month topic ban.
  • (6b) Detail #6, the accusations, there's a point there, as admin Newyorkbrad said that this is being referred to as SPECIFICO seeking revenge for a sanction imposed against herself, and it is hard to avoid that conclusion ... SPECIFICO's conduct loathsome ... reward sanction-gaming. However, admin Newyorkbrad did not take any action towards SPECIFICO. While this action wasn't good, it is not necessarily worth a sanction on its own.
  • (7) Possible BRD misuse #4, I do not see any issue with that notification. starship.paint (exalt) 06:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

I support your proposal here: (https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC_on_Module:Find_sources_-_replace_New_York_Times_with_Associated_Press) but I'm unable to comment as I'm blocked. I'm not T-Banned from the topic though. Feel free to copy over my indication of support as a member of the community if you so wish. I support it for the same reasons as you have identified in your vote of support below the proposal. Jack4576 (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Jack4576: - thank you, please write a message here as if you were commenting there. starship.paint (RUN) 10:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Support - for the above reasons as articulated by starship.paint. The associated press I think it is fair to say, is a source moreso associated with worldwide NPOV viewpoints than the NYT. On pages like this sources like the AP are preferable as to avoid centering the US perspective. Wikipedia can and should be more than an American website Jack4576 (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

   Done Jack4576 starship.paint (RUN) 14:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Vanguard RfC

Thanks for the closing. Could you please go ahead and configure the list of deprecated sources accordingly since I, being the discussion initiator, do not feel it'd be right for me to do so? -The Gnome (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)