User talk:Schazjmd

Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act

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)

The Hollies (band)

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)

A cup of tea for you!

Smooth as silk. Marugamirica (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

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)

Quick revert? (¿ 69 minutes?)

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)

Revdel ranges

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)

Temporary account IP viewer granted

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)

IMDB Reliability

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)

C.W. Kim draft in Afc

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)

Locus Award categories

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)

Minor change in Agatha Christie article

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)

Dress code

I saw that you deleted a source that might be considered unreliable. Can you please suggest a better source for that information? Bearian (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I haven't found one. The closest was this book which states:

An employee on the spectrum may have difficulty deciphering what is considered appropriate to wear. For example, the term "business casual" varies across companies, and the phrase itself is confusing to a literal thinker, because "business" seems the oppposite of "casual". He may also see little relationship between what he wears and the quality of his work—after all, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, explained that he wears the same gray t-shirt every day so he can focus his energy on more important business decisions. Additionally, some individuals with autism have sensory issues that make them sensitive to certain fabrics or clothing types, such as collared shirts, neckties, and closed shoes.

What was your source when you first added the original wording? Schazjmd (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

References

ANI fix

Hi there. Sorry, I just edited your ANI post here because you accidentally linked something else you were reporting elsewhere, which was much worse vandalism than the one you intended. Feel free to revert. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your fix, @SarekOfVulcan. Sometimes ctrl+C doesn't overwrite the previous copy action, I'll try to keep an eye on that. Schazjmd (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's seemed to be happening to me more and more, where I'm sure I copied something, but paste has other ideas.... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from LillaRis87 (18:23, 1 June 2026)

I'm thinking about writing on Narvik's ski resort, and I was wondering if it would be best to write it as a section under Narvik (town), Narvik (municipality) or as a standalone article? (If I can find reliable citations, of course) Thanks. --LillaRis87 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hard to say which is best without seeing the sources. Let me know when you have those, @LillaRis87! Schazjmd (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I just realized that the resort has an article in the Norwegian wikipedia, which has stood for over a decade, I do still find that the article is improperly sourced and maintained. Here are some of the sources I could find in a brief search, but I'm sure that I could find more in a more in-depth search.

- Store norske leksikon (https://snl.no/Narvikfjellet)

- Norwegian Ski Federation (https://www.skiforbundet.no/alpint/nyhetsarkiv/2026/2/klare-for-junior-vm-narvik/)

- Narvik Municipality (https://www.narvik.kommune.no/vm-alpin-2029/)

The resort has hosted the 2026 junior world championships, is the 2029 host for the world championships and has hosted the national championships 10 times.

All this still makes me unsure if it's enough for a standalone article. Thanks. LillaRis87 (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing enough for a stand-alone article, but you could enhance and expand the Narvik Municipality#Recreation and tourism section. Schazjmd (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

You didn't need to revert my edit on Chronicle. What you could've done is go to its director's article and find the source link there. Dr. Gregory House's Missing Cane (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dr. Gregory House's Missing Cane, I removed your claim from the Chronicle article as well, because your source didn't support your text. Schazjmd (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I see you've now added a source to the Chronicle article that does support your text; you should have cited it the first time you added the information. However, even that new source makes no mention of Jaws and is no good for the claim that you added to that article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Gordon S. Wood

On 14 June 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gordon S. Wood, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – robertsky (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Why did you remove the legacy section

The novel is the earliest known example of an Alien invasion story. My sources for the tropes it established are from the text itself. Anthony745508 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@Anthony745508, I did not remove the section, just unsourced claims. Analysis like that must be cited to an independent reliable source, not an editor's interpretation. Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok let me explain myself.

Alien infiltration theme: Aliens (usually shape shifters) start a secret invasion of Earth to take it over. The aliens in The Germ Growers take the form of humans in order to fit into society and secretly create diseases to wipe humanity out.

Thus it’s the earliest known example of the Alien infiltration trope.

As for the Cloaking device, they arrived to earth in invisible spaceships.

Thus this is the earliest known example of a cloaking device in science fiction.

Not only are they sources in the plot summary but a link to the novel itself. In which said tropes play out. You can read the whole thing in order to make sure for certain. Anthony745508 (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

To be accurate, the article would have to read A Wikipedia editor claims that it is the earliest known example of a cloaking device in science fiction. Readers must take it on faith that this editor has thoroughly researched every piece of literature worldwide that is considered to be science fiction that was published before The Germ Growers to reach that conclusion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

That’s fair. It’s safe to safe to that it’s the earliest example of the trope of Alien infiltration. But I should just remove the cloaking device claim unless I can’t find earlier sci-fi stories that feature it. Anthony745508 (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

That same rewrite applies to "earliest known example of the theme of Alien infiltration". You not being able to find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources have written about a subject. If an article makes a claim, readers should be able to see the source for that claim and verify it for themselves. Schazjmd (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s very likely the earliest alien invasion story period. Yes there were prototypes predating it. I actually pointed them out in the origins section of the Alien Invasion article. Most of the sources also state it’s the earliest known. Key word, earliest known. The Germ Growers is super obscure, if any other stories that tell of Aliens Invading, not in the sense of a thought experiment like the prototypes, fully fledged stories. Then it is completely unknown. Thus The Germ Growers is the earliest and quite possibly the first alien invasion story. They probably wasn’t any uses of the Alien infiltration trope because they weren’t any alien invasion stories. Trying to say something is the "first” especially for things before the 20th century, is very to say for certain. Like some people say the first was 1888’s Roundhay Garden Scene or others say 1878’s The Horse in Motion. That is what I mean by "the earliest known” there isn’t to my knowledge or the general surface web’s of any fully fledged alien invasion stories pre 1892. Anthony745508 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The dates.

The Germ Growers was released in August 1892. Two Planets in October 1897. And The War of the Worlds was released on January 19th, 1898. There are sources for the release dates on each said article about said novel. The Germ Growers is very obscure, even among Australian scholars. While Two Planets is only well known in Germany. Up until late 2025, which when this article was created. If you were to look up the 1st Alien Invasion story, it always said that it was The War of the Worlds. It’s safe to say even there isn’t a direct source for this claim. That The War of the Worlds overshadowed The Germ Growers. Anthony745508 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry typo

I meant 1st movie I was using film as an example Anthony745508 (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

You're invited to the Mentorship noticeboard

Hi, Schazjmd. I can't quite make out if you are still a mentor or not, but maybe you will still be interested in the brand new Wikipedia:Mentorship noticeboard. I think as mentors we have a lot to learn from each other, and I look forward to having the opportunity to interact with you and other mentors there, and hearing your feedback. Please take the § Survey when you get there! Mathglot (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, @Mathglot, that noticeboard looks like a helpful resource for mentors. I'll keep it in mind for when I become active as a mentor again. Schazjmd (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Intentional reverting of the Norwegian women's football team by another user

Hi, I know that you are not into this topic about the sport, but can you go to the page about Norwegian women's football team? The main reason is that the "History" section about the team, was, I think, made and written in a bad quality. This included several issues, from grammar mistakes, redundant duplicate links from several teams (it must be per MOS:DUPLINK), and even that the text was made in a fandom like writing; I tried to concise into a logical, cohesive whole, while also throwing out redundant details, putting the right links for some Euros, and fix an incorrect fact about 1991 World Cup, as Norway lost in the final against USA, not semifinals, as well other issues. You can check the history of the editing and see that there are several issues here. All of this was reverted by the user named Rklingmann. I even wrote the edit summary about those issues, but this user obviusly knew my summary and intentionally ignored it. Perhaps it should be reported to some administrator for this problem as it was caused by him, not me, as it was not a vandalism. ~2026-27587-89 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-27587-89, I've opened a talk page discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, I noticed that the user did not respond to you yet. This probably means that he read your message, but wanted to avoid your reply. The question is what now? Should we wait or there are options, like the one that I told you yesterday?

~2026-27587-89 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I've left a message on their user talk page, @~2026-27587-89. Schazjmd (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I know that, I went to the talk page discussion that you made earlier, but the user still did not respond to your message. I cannot make an edits about the team once more or else he will "beat" me again and then he will report me for this to someone and I will be blocked.

~2026-27587-89 (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I left the user talk page message less than an hour ago, give it some time. Schazjmd (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey, since he has not replied to you, I will wait one more day if there would be his response. If not... Well, we will see what will be next.

~2026-27587-89 (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC) ~2026-39271-23 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Apology, my IP address was changed, I did not expect that, sorry. ~2026-39271-23 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Not a problem. Temporary accounts expire after 90 days. Schazjmd (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that you went to the page and made a revision, which I appreciate. Since this has been going on for a long time, at first I was thinking about leaving and not participating in it anymore, but from what I have seen, I will wait for about 3-4 days because I don't think it is quite over, depending on the reaction of the user Rklingmann.

~2026-39271-23 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC) ~2026-39277-56 (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh my, I cannot believe that my IP address was changed again so quickly.

~2026-39277-56 (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

Why did you revert my edits on the article for Jaws? Dr. Gregory House's Missing Cane (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Because you added trivia that is cited to a non-reliable source, @Dr. Gregory House's Missing Cane. Schazjmd (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Jo-Ann Fabrics

Hi Schaz. I saw you reverted a small edit I made at Jo-Ann Fabrics (German immigrants —> German Jewish immigrants). “Not supported by the cited sources.” If I cite better sources, can I reinstate it? tharsaile (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course, @Tharsaile. Schazjmd (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for backing me up on my talk page over my edits on the Union Pacific 844 article, I just saw your message on my talk page. Right now I seriously don't know what else to do to convince Danners430 about my edits, because he's being very difficult to work with and he won't stop wrongfully accusing me over false accusations of my editing. I even tried to respectfully explain to him on his talk page about my edits, but he still refuses to cooperate with me. I swear I never threatened him at all on his talk page, I just wanted him to stop making false accusations of me. Now I'm currently in the troubled situation now because I don't what else to do now. ~2026-38867-09 (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC) ~2026-38867-09 (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-38867-09, I know it's frustrating when interactions escalate. Right now, the article has your correction in it, and I've added it to my watchlist temporarily. Hopefully, Danners430 will see the issue and things will calm down now. Schazjmd (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I even did tell him that another user changed it before, but he still won't listen. ~2026-38867-09 (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Column deletion

Hi, I was working on List of perfumes and while adding citations for the "Ref." column, you deleted the text that explains the purpose of that column which was "authority for its notability headings" (which keeps the article from being a list of all known fragrances). What was your thought on that? Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

It didn't make sense to list all of the column headings in prose when the point is telling the readers that the table is sortable. Readers of wikipedia are very familiar with our references and know what the little blue clicky numbers in that column do. In addition, I agree with the previous editor who had tagged "authority" with the clarification-needed tag (which you removed), since most of the sources cited as refs are inadequate to support notability and aren't "authorities"; at best, most of the sources merely validate that something exists. Schazjmd (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be some authority to put them on a list of notable fragrances, but now there's no indication that this anything more than a list of all perfumes?

My original thought was to add citations for all the perfumes Edwards discusses in his main books, and then to remove less notable fragrances that will probably never make any list of important fragrances - for example, I already removed Coty's Exclamation and an Old Spice flanker. But you've been working on this article for a while, so I'm happy to defer to the direction you wanted it to take. I just wanted to open this discussion with you since we were both editing the same article at the same time, and at cross purposes. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wikipedian-in-Waiting, I've done very little editing on that article. My only other edits there before today's were to revert spam. Please feel free to rework the table to make it more encyclopedic. Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries, I reverted my changes to the article. You might want to go back and delete the column explanations again, as there was no way for me to revert my changes without also undoing yours. The article as a lot of substantial errors, omissions, and non-notable scents. I hope someone else will update it. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I had no objection to your table changes, @Wikipedian-in-Waiting, and was glad to see someone tackling it. It's only on my watchlist because it's a magnet for advertisers. I understand if you don't want to take on such a large undertaking, but it really could use some work. Schazjmd (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Flags in the Infobox (shoo flags shoo)

Hey there. Please have a look at Talk:Miami#Flags in the infobox (again). There have been plenty of discussions, but I don't think it's gone to an RfC. I'd appreciate your opinion on whether it's worth the effort. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Magnolia677, I added a comment there. Short version: probably not worth the effort, IMO, sorry. Schazjmd (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

All the previous discussions about his ended in a 50/50. I'll leave it. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Fairy tales

Hello, could you please confirm that I was not wrong in categorising this fairy tale under "fairies" rather than "witchcraft" since this fairy tale features no witches, only fairies (different magic users). The main body of Beauty and the Beast supports this statement.

Another thing that peturbs is that several other users have claimed that fairy tales about flesh-eating monsters such as giants, trolls and ogres are somehow about cannibalism because such creatures have human features? I find this label very erroneous since these are magical monsters, not humans. ~2026-40617-46 (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I think FlightTime should have discussed the revert with you after you took it to his talk page, and have asked him about it in the ANI report.

Honestly, it looks like you have a grievance against FlightTime because of that revert and his failure to engage in the discussion, so you opened a report at ANI just tossing out unsupported accusations and tacking on your dispute at the end like an afterthought. It might have been more productive to request admin assistance based on failure to communicate, instead of muddying the waters with other stuff. Schazjmd (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)