User talk:Colmedy

Welcome!

Hello, Colmedy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome!  Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Colmedy (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mac Tonight. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SounderBruce 18:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Im not in an edit war. Sounder Bruce deleted a large chunk of content from the page. Colmedy (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SounderBruce 21:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

There are reliable sources lol. Colmedy (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

mac tonight

When the stars come out to play, babe a twinklin' show, ooh dinnah! outta sight yeah the night time is Golden Light time at McDonald's! (show time) it's Mac Tonight!

[twinkle, twinkle, twinkle] HectorHawk9 (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of Unreliable and Self-published Sources

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. XCBRO172 (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The "unreliable sources" are literally links to the ads and footage. and i think only one thing was kinda self published was literally a comparison vid showing the difference between the voices. Colmedy (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I have already notified you on these topics but I will quote directly from the Wikipedia guidelines:

WP:NOYT explains:

"YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organizations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher. Videos may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. In all cases, care should be undertaken to ensure that the video is genuinely authorized by the copyright holder. Be careful not to link to material that is a copyright violation. In general, unless the video is clearly marked as "official" with a name strongly identified with the notable publisher or source, best practice is to treat it as a copyright violation and not use it."

WP:TOOMUCH notes:

"When seeing a section or subsection within an article, editors often try to expand them, especially if such sections or subsections are short. However, there are times when people add one or more of the following to such articles:

• Excessive detail
• Irrelevant content that is better placed in a different article
• Trivial content

Before inserting new material, consider its significance. Is this something the topic is widely known for? What is its connection to the topic's notability? Any indiscriminate detail should be removed. Readers might lose interest when a portion of an article goes into too much detail on one specific aspect. Other times, readers might question how so much detail on something is important to the topic. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of every single fact about a subject."

And finally, WP:Identifying and using self-published works says:

"

1. For certain claims by the author about themselves. (See #For claims by self-published authors about themselves)
2. The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.
3. A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published."

Thank you for your attention, and I hope you can learn from this. XCBRO172 (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Second Warning on Constant Violations

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. XCBRO172 (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Mac Tonight Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mac Tonight Party 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/Mac Tonight Party 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.

Deauthorized. ^(talk) 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. The list of blockable offenses is long. Everything you want to do is only for a fan site, and is unencyclopedic. You have WP:OWNed Mac Tonight and bullied everyone by dominating Talk:Mac Tonight and the article's edit summaries with rants, with casting WP:ASPERSIONS, with WP:NPA personal attacks, with WP:3RR edit wars. For contradicting you with policies, you have ordered people to leave the article, leave Wikipedia, or "get a life".[1] You have been exhaustively warned with policy and your response is more rants or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Everything I and everyone else has deleted is absolutely banned by policy. You deny the existence of policy as if everything is just opinion. WP:FANCRUFT WP:YOUTUBE WP:NOTBLOG WP:USERGEN WP:RS. — Smuckola(talk) 01:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You literally deleted large chunks of the Wikipedia page without discussing the changes on talk page Colmedy (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the issues with the page were either deleted or fixed Colmedy (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

And ofc I'd get mad about people changing the page, no one uses the talk page, and I never get a response from anyone on how to fix the issues with the article, people just send me policies and delete nearly everything. This is what you're doing too lmaoo. Can we actually talk out the issues with the page, I feel the episodes page is important imho! Can we actually have a discussion, it doesn't help me to just link a bunch of stuff and not actually respond Colmedy (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

All false. Of course they do. I just told you in my edit summary, and won't repeat again, that it was already talked to death for months, on that talk page, on this talk page, and on your two ANI reports[2][3] which are all blockably severe. It's buried between and under all your rants. You should have been blocked long ago but they got bigger fish.

However, there rarely was, and isn't now, anything to discuss. They should have linked more policies like WP:RS more often (like he did at ANI[4]) instead of only helpfully describing them, but you wouldn't have read them then either. You want Wikipedia to stop being an encyclopedia and start being a fansite and your personal weblog. You want policy to be your demand.[5]

The article is currently reasonably FIXED, because I just fixed it. Again. Exactly the same way everyone else already did long ago, which you don't like because you're wrong. It stands right now as the latest stable version, not to be reverted ever again. The consensus was set months ago on the Talk page, which was also irrelevant because of obvious policy anyway. The consensus was "policy exists" and that you're bullying. You think anything you disagree with means that nobody ever said it. Anything you don't wanna read doesn't exist. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Stop saying that. Being your behavior coach and personal tutor is way above the pay grade of volunteers, but nonetheless have all doggedly conspired to try to stop you from getting yourself blocked.

I will go out of my way to also blame Wikipedia's background policies for letting anybody start editing with no orientation training, and constantly lying to the world that "anybody can edit" and that anything goes. Everybody sees a lot of fancruft on other articles that also must be deleted, and some people assume that it's ok. Sorry. :( I hate all that.

However, if you drop the bullying, and read all the policies, you can then ask kind tutors at WP:TEAHOUSE to explain policies to you! Truly that's what the volunteers at Teahouse like to do, and that's why it's there. After you do all that, maybe you'll realize that almost nothing that has been deleted from this article can EVER go into any encyclopedia article, but belongs at a fan site instead.

No more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, no more WP:SEALION, no more blasting a revert as your "disagree" button (yes also blockable WP:3RR), no more broken record, no more casting WP:ASPERSIONS and personal attacks WP:NPA,[6][7][8] no more citing weblogs or YouTube videos, no more fake episode guides, no more WP:TRIVIA or WP:FANCRUFT, and no more directories WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia is just plain WP:NOT that. The WP:BURDEN is 100% on you and 0% on anybody else at this point. Starting with WP:RS and WP:YOUTUBE.

Imagine the relief! Then, all shall be forgiven! And at a fan site, if you drop your bullying, your talents and obsessions will be rewarded, and I would be legit super impressed if all your content went there. — Smuckola(talk) 03:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)