User talk:Soetermans

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

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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

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) [reply ]

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

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) [reply ]

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