User talk:OfficeBoy

Greetings...

Hello, OfficeBoy, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. --Kanonkas : Talk 19:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Michelle Thomas, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Broderick Cloete

Hey OfficeBoy :). Thanks for your edit to this article - do you have any reference backing up the statement about his marriage? Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Of course, there are severel. Just google the subject.

By the way: Most of the sources give his middle name as Brodrick instead of Broderick.

Greetings, OfficeBoy.

Thanks. In the future, users are expected to add citations to any content they add; just a word to the wise :). Enjoy the remainder of your weekend! Ironholds (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

Hi and thanks for locating middle names in the Homer Davenport article, but can you tell me the source you used to find them? The source we have in there doesn't verify the info and as Homer Davenport is a featured article, we have to verify EVERYTHING. So if you could, pop by that talk page (or answer here) and let me know the source. Montanabw^(talk) 21:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Stirling Silliphant, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Well there are several sources on the internet, for example [this one] or [this one]. Maybe that helps. Thank you. OfficeBoy (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, I'm Egghead06. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to River Deep – Mountain High because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please read WP:SONGCOVER Egghead06 (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Egghead06 (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Entwistle

Did you attempt a legitimate (sourced) edit in the Peg Entwistle article, or was your mention of 1888 and the USS YALE meant as something else? Peg Entwistle was not yet born in 1888, and she never sailed on the YALE. This is clearly shown and sourced in the Ellis Island Foundation records and a biography detailing her family and their arrival to America. The edit you attempted has been reverted. 169.232.212.171 (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can read and therefore I am well aware that Entwistle was not born in 1888. 1888 is simply the year in which the ship on which she "reportedly" emigrated to the USA was put in service. I don't know what this has to do with her DOB. The linking was (obviously) intended to be an improvement of the article. I googled it again and I think I was mistaken. I guess it was probably rather the City of Paris which was named Philadelphia around the time the Entwistle family relocated to America. But of course I will refrain from any further editings of the article. English-speaking Wikipedia is surprisingly hostile, ungrateful, and bitchy. Thank you and good night. OfficeBoy (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clark edit Suggestion

You wouldn't happen to have a source you could add on Walter Clark's death on the Titanic? Thanks! --KingJeff1970 (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example Titanics passenger manifest which is all over the internet. Just check the 'First Class passengers' section on Encyclopedia Titanica. You're welcome. OfficeBoy (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that means you're not going to take responsibility for your own edit. It would be helpful to the rest of us if you did.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to William A. Clark. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OfficeBoy, you have a long history of adding material without sources and leaving it to others to clean up after you. There are numerous comments above explaining the problem to you. Please stop doing that. TJRC (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, OfficeBoy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

van Bibber

When we have two reputable sources that contradict each other (the Baltimore Sun clearly says she was 48 and a dozen years older), we cite them both.

"Seven (ref rootsweb) or twelve (ref baltimore sun) years his senior". DS (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at River Deep - Mountain High, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Egghead06 (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at River Deep - Mountain High.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:SONGCOVER and ensure your additions comply. Egghead06 (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darling, excuse me, but are you fucking serious? Didn't I just tell you that I've got the very records in my hand? Just google it, goddammit. I don't understand what you want. I add cover versions to Wikipedia articles all the time and you, yes YOU are the only one that keeps deleting it. No-one else is such a PAIN in the ass. What's your problem? Don't get me wrong but you really are an egghead. But okay, I'll try. I mean, you certainly know about discogs.com (I'm not entirely sure though as you seem to be quite limited and unwilling to do research). You can look for the artists in question on that website. You can also take a look [[5]] and yes, there are at least 68 motherf***ing cover versions of this song. And I only added a handful. It's all there. And, I'll say it again, I got these records in my collection and, surprise, they include versions of "River Deep - Mountain High". Jesus Fucking Christ. Please someone take this person off Wikipedia. OfficeBoy (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to River Deep - Mountain High. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Egghead06 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, OfficeBoy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

precise family information

Thank you for quality fixes to the precise names, dates and relations within families, with some detailed edit summaries, especially for German historic biographies, for page moves to the proper names, for other fixes, for service from 2007, and in German, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Renee Harris (producer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New York and Matinée (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endicott

Thanks for your edit to Henry Bradford Endicott. Your edit said that his second wife was a widow, not a divorcee. Do you have a source for that? One of the sources cited already says she was divorced. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, OfficeBoy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anna Wilmarth Ickes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First National Bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Regarding stuff like this, that is a poor source. See WP:Reliable sources for the type of sources you should be using. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to add sources when you add new information to articles, as you did here. The edit adds names and dates of birth for several people but does not contain any sources supporting that information. The sources cited in the article don't support that information as far as I can tell, so I have undone your edit. Please don't re-do it without reliable sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And please use reliable sources -- see WP:RS. For example, https://www.geni.com/people/Alexander-Hamilton-Rice-Jr/6000000015559724082 is not a reliable source. E Eng 18:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of this stuff is new to you. People have been asking you to cite your changes using reliable sources since 2011. You have no excuse for not doing so. Eight years is quite long enough to know better. Stop forcing other people to clean up after you. If you continue to add names and dates of birth to articles without proper sourcing/using unreliable sources, it may be construed as disruptive editing, which you can be blocked for. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note from User:OfficeBoy that this editor's home wiki is de. Perhaps standards are different there? E Eng 22:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that de was harsher about sourcing than we are (maybe it's just notability), but even if it's less, eight years of repeat warnings (just look at the rest of the talk page!) ought to be long enough to pick up on any differences in sourcing requirements. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't offering an excuse, just a potential explanation. E Eng 23:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know, sorry. I didn't mean to sound like I was annoyed at you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to sound like I thought you meant to sound like you were annoyed at me. E Eng 00:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, hold on, we're both being far too sensible about this whole thing. By this many indents we should be threatening each other with fisticuffs at ANI. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get the ball rolling: Your mother wears army boots! ^[FBDB] E Eng 01:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, that is it, we are friends off and it's pistols at dawn. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to use {{fbdb}}, lest some clueless admin wander by and block you for making death threats. Have you visited the museums? E Eng 03:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left him a note on his German Wikipedia talk page. TJRC (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at John Merle Coulter and several other articles. I join in the comments above. You have dozens of warnings spanning the better part of a decade. You need to stop doing this. You can no longer claim not to know better. TJRC (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Well, if you want to block a Wiki author of 15 years and of 600 written articles, GO AHEAD, you ungrateful motherfuckers. I usually put a source into my edits. I can't believe how this shitty platform treats its authors. Incredible. Kiss my ass, Wikipedia. Cheers. OfficeBoy (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants to block you, but are you unable to see the problem with this edit [6], which – after I reverted [7], pointing out that the source was not reliable – you followed by doing the exact same thing again [8]? E Eng 08:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Calling people motherfuckers for asking you to abide by our guidelines on reliable sources is totally uncalled for. Do it again and I will block you for making personal attacks. There's no place for that kind of totally uncollegial attitude in this cooperative project. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe motherfucker sounds better in German. I understand Freud used it all the time. E Eng 08:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And in all fairness, the kiss invitation was at least a bit affectionate. TJRC (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All joking aside, I've just been looking more at this editor's contributions, and we've really got a problem. Everywhere to you look stuff is sourced to rootsweb, imdb, findagrave, etc etc etc. This has been going on for years. Not to mention stuff like [9] and [10]. E Eng 16:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've started trawling back through their contribs reverting anything not sourced to a reliable source. What a nightmare. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through to the first of February, undoing ones I couldn't find reliable sources for and reffing any I could find. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We make a great team: I point out things that need doing, and you do them. E Eng 07:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm not sure I like this arrangement as much as you do. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So who says rootsweb, imdb, findagrave etc. are not reliable sources? Where do you think people get there informatin on family names from? How should I know what Wikipedia considers a reliable source and what not? You don't improve those articles by deleting the information I added. But if you feel better deleting everything, go on and have fun. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands. For me this is through. I honestly don't see the problem. I added sources in most cases and if you are not satisfied with those sources I will, of course, stop contributing. When I started out doing stuff on Wikipedia everything was easy and fun. Now I only get shit hurled into my face. I'm being told I'm vandalizing Wikipedia and I'm treated like I'm a criminal. I'm being threatened with being blocked. Are you fucking kidding me? I have been a registered author since 2004 and I'v created more than 600 articles for German-language Wikipedia, with articles regularly surfacing on the starting page. And this is how I'm getting treated. Thanks a lot. What a bunch of ungrateful assholes. OfficeBoy (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone calling you a vandal. Without even trying I'm finding four different places right on this page where people have given you a link to WP:Reliable sources, yet apparently you still haven't read it -- it specifically calls out Imdb, Ancestry, and similar sites as unreliable, and explains why. You can act offended all you want, but the fact is you aren't even trying to understand basic things about how things are done here. If you've been getting away with stuff like this at de.wp then that's a serious indictment of that project. E Eng 20:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A related example is this edit, where you obviously have a source, since you mention it in your edit summary, but you don't add it to the article. It does no good to have a URL mentioned in the article history, divorced from the text of the article.

I don't know whether Sounds of the Universe is a reliable source and am not expressing any opinion on that. But the point remains that you are adding material to article without adding sources; or with only non-reliable sources. That's a key tenet of Wikipedia, at least English Wikipedia, and I am having trouble believing that you've edited for so long, and gotten so many warnings about this, and yet express surprise at the requirement. TJRC (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Lois Gould. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dekimasuよ! 02:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gave sopurces, Jesus FUCKING Christ. Just because you, YOU, as an individual, are not sure about the source it doesn't give you the right to delete everything I do and get me blocked you indescribably fussy, petty-minded moron. What is your problem? I recently even used this "cite your sources" shit that I have never used before and even this is not enough? I have no idea what you want and I really feel harrassed by you by now because you seem to be the only one who has a problem with me at this stage. Get off by back, annoying asshole. I really need to report you to Wikipeda OfficeBoy (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two or three posts above I told you explicitly that Ancestry is not a RS, with a link explaining why. Why won't you listen to what so many are telling you? E Eng 07:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeBoy, many of the sources you continually use, and have been warned about, have entries at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If you're serious about being a productive contributor here, you should have a look at that; you'll see that many of the sources that you use, and have been warned about, are clearly listed there, with concise findings of whether they can or cannot be relied upon. You will see, for example, as examples that are generally not considered reliable many of your favorites: Ancestry.com, Find a Grave, and Geni.com.

It's okay for you to use those sites for your own edification and enjoyment. But the material on them is, for the most part, contributed by any arbitrary Internet user, and there's no way of knowing whether that material is accurate. You can't import potentially erroneous information from those sites into Wikipedia; it impairs Wikipedia's integrity and trustworthiness. That's all this is about.

If you can't find corroboration of material you take from these sites on a reliable site, it is okay to leave it out of the article. Wikipedia is a compendium of information that has previously been reliably published, and if information might be wrong because you don't have a reliable source, it's perfectly okay—preferable, even—to leave it out.

You have twenty-some instances of improper sourcing above; and they come from at least a dozen different editors. When you have that many warnings from that many different people, you should perhaps stop to think that maybe it's not everyone else but you who is doing this wrong. TJRC (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're at it again, adding material without sources. Did the block teach you nothing? TJRC (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here, too, and here. At least on the second, you put something in the edit summary, but that's not sufficient. Add the source as a reference. It does no one any good for you to put it only in the edit summary where it will not be seen a few weeks from now. Don't leave a mess for other editors to clean up after you. You've been prominently and repeatedly warned about this. TJRC (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at John Jay Chapman. TJRC (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicelebs.com as a source

Hi OfficeBoy. I noticed that you recently used ethnicelebs.com as a source for information in Peter Blunt. Please note that there is general consensus that ethnicelebs.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave

Are you serious? Hit Ctrl F on this very talk page and you'll find previous instances where you've been told Find a Grave isn't reliable. Numerous editors have referred you to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, and if you Ctrl F on that page, you'll find that Find a Grave is marked red for "generally unreliable", because it is user generated. You need to abide by our sourcing policies and practices while you're here on en.wiki. It's not optional. I'm going to undo your revert; please don't revert me again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the German Wikipedia, we use the external links blacklist for totally unwanted external sites, just to make sure everyone gets the point. (We do not consider findagrave to be unwanted.) I guess this is just a matter of misunderstanding stemming from different practices and standards. --Prüm (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI July 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also left a notification on the de.wiki talk page in case this one doesn't get seen. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for the persistent addition of biographical material to articles without the inclusion of reliable sources. You have been warned myriad times that you must include sources and they must meet WP:RS yet the poor edits continue; this leads me to believe that you either don't understand Wikipedia sourcing requirements or you just don't care to follow them. Whichever the case may be, I don't see how a finite block will end the disruption and have therefore blocked you indefinitely. You can be unblocked when you acknowledge the concerns raised by multiple editors and are able to demonstrate that you understand and will abide by WP:BLP and WP:RS.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Permalink to discussion where Ponyo announced block Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archived here. Mathglot (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]