User talk:MSincccc

Catherine and William pages

If there needs to be a discussion, it has to include the articles of the whole British royal family. For now, these two articles are the only different ones so until a consensus is reached, they should be the same as the rest. Maria0215 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Maria0215 Not to be so. You can refer to the FAC page and make similar changes to the articles of other royals. Pinging co-nominator and reviewer @Keivan.f and @Gerda Arendt. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverting edit.

Why'd you revert my edit on Catherine, Princess of Wales? Most BLPs use a vectorized version of their signature. — 48JCL 17:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@48JCL Not my fault. It all occurred due to technical glitches on my device. Sorry for the inconvenience. Your edit has been restored. I hope you understand. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

New article for John V Olyer

Hi MSincccc. Nice to meet you. I work for BeiGene, the pharmaceutical company, and I am trying to publish an article for the company's CEO, John Oyler. I noticed your involvement in other BLPs, including those of entrepreneurs and business executives; your help with the draft I put together here would be appreciated. I am grateful for your review and input for inclusion in main space Wikipedia.

Thanks, SunshineWinter (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg talk page comments

Hi can you please respond to my comments on his talk page. I think they are relevant to what would be considered under GAR. Czarking0 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hi @MSincccc thanks for reaching out. You can help me in joining a “editing operation” at the soon to be created article Draft:Premiership of Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool where I might need some help in adding new content and information to that page. Your help is greatly needed and appreciated. It is a pleasure to have your support and hand. And also I got Tim’s name because I have known him for a while looking through the revision history of certain historical articles he usually edits. So that’s how I know him and other editors. And also thank you very much again for reaching me and providing the assistance that I need to get through in creating the new article mentioned beforehand. Altonydean (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Catherine

I thought you would welcome that edit. You had previously complained about the addition of the second public appearance, and I said at the time that once we had more context we could add it. Well, now we have more context. She is making "occasional" appearances, and I think the two refs that I offered verify the statement very clearly. I really don't understand what you are doing. You just seem to revert anything that you have not thought through sufficiently. Don't worry, I will never help you with another article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ssilvers Not that I was trying to alienate you or that I want to shoo you away but that was just not meant for the article. They go to church in Balmoral every time at this time of the year; it was a private visit with the family and not one in an official capacity. Please feel free to add an engagement from the future when she carries out something in an official capacity (which she is yet to do since her Wimbledon appearance). Furthermore, if you were really looking forward to adding another appearance of hers, why not even add the fact that she appeared in a video along with other public figures and Prince William to congratulate Team GB athletes after the Olympics? Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The change that I made DOES NOT ADD another appearance. In fact it *removes* an appearance, and it summarizes and contextualizes all of her appearances since she began cancer treatment, which is what you need in the article, and what readers currently need to know. So either you failed to pay attention to what my change actually did, or you are simply making a knee-jerk reversion of the content. Either way, I don't like your judgment (in addition to your prose) and don't want to work with you anymore. BTW: A video is not the same as a public appearance, as it is made in a controlled environment, unlike a public appearance. You could be sitting on a toilet, vomiting every 5 minutes, and still make a video. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ssilvers Your revision does "ADD" an appearance as the Parade article you cited (could have used the Daily Telegraph or other finer sources also, if really important) mentions her visit to Crathie Cirk with other members of the family. Furthermore, the FAC was filled with comments as to cut down on the amount of "She did this, she did that" material and that parts of the article read like "a laundry list". If you could help me with cutting down on unnecessary information and replace sources with higher quality ones (including books) please do. Also you are welcome to put forth your comments at the next peer review. Regards and apologies if I did bother you in any way (but that was never my intention). Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Either way, I don't like your judgment (in addition to your prose) and don't want to work with you anymore. Sorry for having made you feel that way, but again that was never my intention and even on my worst day here I would not have done such a thing to any editor. I am still pretty young and I would appreciate it if the others could collaborate effectively. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for my angry words, and wish only good luck to you in your future endeavors. I have unsubscribed to this discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ssilvers One last point, please. Will you put forth your suggestions at the article's next Peer Review if you find it convenient to do so? Also please put forth any valuable suggestions if possible. I understand that you made the edit in good faith. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No. My edit was a clear improvement to the article. If you cannot understand that, I cannot help you. Please stop pinging me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ssilvers I have replaced your source with a higher quality one but it conveys the same information. Let me know of your thoughts on this in your response. Thereafter, I will close this thread. Thank you for your suggestions. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"Her next appearance came in July" That is a very poor edit and makes the article demonstrably worse, as she has made multiple appearances since June. My edit would have greatly improved your article. Please do not contact me about this again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

this change by your colleague has finally reinstated my edit, so it is fine now. I am assuming that the drama you created was some kind of mistake on your part, but I still do not wish to work with you any further. Please do not post to my Talk page again, and I will extend the same courtesy to you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned, your revision only added a reference pertaining to her latest appearance. You never made any changes to the corresponding prose nor did you include it in your suggestions. You had ample time to modify the prose according to the reference added. Ssilvers I hope you will agree to the fact that you never suggested any changes for the prose nor did you make any. Furthermore, I do not see any reason why you should accuse me of starting a "sort of drama" ? I never initiated one and I still assume good faith. Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You are very, very wrong. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ssilvers One last comment before I close this discussion. I am assuming that the drama you created was some kind of mistake on your part, but I still do not wish to work with you any further. No drama on my part, for sure. This situation would not have arisen at all had you at least suggested any changes to the prose. Furthermore, my colleague's edit was never the one you made-since you never mentioned prose tweaks until recently. What do you have to say with regards to this? MSincccc (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I did. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ssilvers Well, yes you did. My sincere apologies for my careless oversight. I never noticed it. But then you should know I am still in my early teens and the fact that I was in the middle of my sleep when the notification clicked that a revision had been made meant I only looked upto the extent that a not-so reliable source had been used. Would you mind forgiving me? I assure you that a similar occurence would not take place in future. Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I forgive you, but, IMO: 1. You should not involve yourself with trying to promote articles to the GA or FA level until you no longer have the urge to edit "in the middle of your sleep" and preferably not until you complete undergraduate work at a university; and 2. If someone challenges a reversion you make, you should look back at the history much, much, much, much, much, much more carefully before insisting that you are right (and then insisting that you are right; and then and then insisting that you are right; and then insisting that you are right; and then insisting that you are right). Now, will you please, please leave me alone until, say, 2035? Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)