User talk:Some1: Difference between revisions

 

Line 227: Line 227:

:::::Okay. I don’t see where he calls that out, but I’m trying not to get involved. I may add them back some time in the future if I’m working on the page. Cheers, [[User:Danbloch|Dan Bloch]] ([[User talk:Danbloch|talk]]) 23:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

:::::Okay. I don’t see where he calls that out, but I’m trying not to get involved. I may add them back some time in the future if I’m working on the page. Cheers, [[User:Danbloch|Dan Bloch]] ([[User talk:Danbloch|talk]]) 23:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{u|Danbloch}} I believe it’s the {{!xt|”Then delete the excesive media outlets sources in the Pew’s definition or leave the media outlets sources in both RF and S&H.”}} part of his comment, since he was trying to add in the {{red|”Various media outlets have cited Strauss and Howe’s theory including The New York Times,[83] The Wall Street Journal,[84] Fortune,[85] The Australian[86] and Bussines Insider.[87]”}} and {{red|”Several british media outlets have cited Resolution Foundation’s definition including BBC,[77] Independent[78] and The Guardian.[79]”}} sentences.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennials&oldid=1310289876#Date_and_age_range_definitions] (And it’s not like I needed to follow his demands, but it’s whatever.) [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1#top|talk]]) 23:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{u|Danbloch}} I believe it’s the {{!xt|”Then delete the excesive media outlets sources in the Pew’s definition or leave the media outlets sources in both RF and S&H.”}} part of his comment, since he was trying to add in the {{red|”Various media outlets have cited Strauss and Howe’s theory including The New York Times,[83] The Wall Street Journal,[84] Fortune,[85] The Australian[86] and Bussines Insider.[87]”}} and {{red|”Several british media outlets have cited Resolution Foundation’s definition including BBC,[77] Independent[78] and The Guardian.[79]”}} sentences.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennials&oldid=1310289876#Date_and_age_range_definitions] (And it’s not like I needed to follow his demands, but it’s whatever.) [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1#top|talk]]) 23:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

== [[Generation Z]] lead ==

The lead to this article is quite long, six paragraphs, whereas other generation articles usually have 3-4 paragraphs in the intro. Maybe some of it could be trimmed or moved into the body.–[[User:Jw00231|Jw00231]] ([[User talk:Jw00231|talk]]) 23:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Some1.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

MediaWiki message delivery 00:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m writing this as you seem to be only one of the few who are interested / motivated to correct Musk’s wikipedia biography data. I spent about 2 days reading court cases about Elon Musk, including his depositions, evidence, and complaints dating to 1990s and find his “Education” part article outrageously false, fabricated and up for removal. It’s a shame for Wikipedia to have this on one of the most-read articles on the Wikipedia, that has 99% of the world populations, simply trusts.

1. Elon Musk has no degree in Physics, only bs in economics. All sources cited rely on Vance’s book, which is BASED on what MUSK said to her. I’ve searched all data on the internet, including court deposition, where Musk was caught lying on deposition in 2007, here are (just some, simplified for you) sources, – https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zPeWaaCZHqfq0tnkPwc61A6bGHySdj91
2. The notion “wrote a business plan for an electronic book-scanning service similar to Google Books” cites article by the British Guardian, which is based on their interview with Musk himself (as Guardian replied to me in an recent email I can show).
3. The notion that “Musk held two internships” relies on Vance’s book, self-interviewed. No one from Pinnacle Research Institute specifically had ever stepped up and confirmed it in ANY form. The company had a big presence in 90s.
4. The notion of “his acceptance to a graduate program in materials science at Stanford” is wrong, as there’s no one who’s ever confirmed Elon’s acceptance, nor anyone who remembers him and there’s no possible to verify it without Elon Musk’s (confirmation). Information on it is substantially revealed in the lawsuits against him, where he was forced to reveal information (some of the lawsuits mentioned in the link above). Furthermore, there was no such department as “material science” at Stanford in 90s; at the time he claims acceptance, he didn’t have graduation diploma from Wharton (which he, as confirmed in court depositions, had NOT received until 1997), Stanford would had never accepted ANY student against its own protocols (someone without a diploma). Stanford acceptance doesn’t exist. Neither anyone from the faculty remembers reviewing his application.
5. The notion “applying for a job at Netscape” is based on Musk’s own self-given interviews to CNBC (which it was happy to provide him with due to the views and publicity).
6. The rest two sentences are based on what “Musk has said”. Everything is a blunt lie and it’s heart-breaking to read it publicly.

I couldn’t not proceed further because, apparently, everything is fabricated and I just wanted to start with a little note (this note with you), as you are the only who can do a change on Wikipedia and has power to do it.

Reading court cases and his depositions and the lies that he fed court is utterly painful (nevertheless it still recommended as all of his court cases against him must be read by anyone to see how much of a swindler he is).

Since I cannot edit, neither semi-edit, I reach out to you as the only remedy either to reach out to Wikipedia / or edit / lead discussion with Wikipedia yourself.

Thank you very much for reading it! Ruslanhonchar1997 (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslanhonchar1997, I copied your comment to the Elon Musk‘s talk page for others to review and respond; see Talk:Elon Musk § Outrageously false Wikipedia Musk biography data, especially strikes his “EDUCATION”, the only one I reviewed. Thanks, Some1 (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Biological female has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 27 § Biological female until a consensus is reached. Raladic (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects you have created have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 27 § Biological woman/man until a consensus is reached. Raladic (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you harassing me? You wrote on my talk page that you suspected I was a sockpuppet. I am not. Others disagreed in discussion about the subject, then you said you would leave me be, even saying “happy editing!” But now you’re continuing to baselessly speculate about my affiliation with pages that I am not affiliated with. I don’t understand what this is about. I respectfully ask you please stop hounding me or I will have no choice but to share all of this on WP:ANI. Thank you for your understanding. – TarynCheese (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TarynCheese Your talk page popped up on my watchlist after you had cleared it [25] (apparently I forgot to un-watch your talk page after leaving the comment), so I decided to check out your contributions and saw that you had started an AfD. I don’t think it’s right for suspected sockpuppets to start AfDs while the SPI is still open and unresolved, so I thought I would leave a note at the page for the closing admin to review. Feel free to take this to ANI if you think this needs escalating. Some1 (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
• An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

Hi, why did you delete my last edits and said that they weren’t improves? I literally cited reliable sources accepted by Wikipedia, used correct Edit links for several sources and put some sources in order to make the article look less messy, i think you just arbitrarily deleted my edits without any real reason for doing it based on Wikipedia’s rules. WWIIhero (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WWIIhero You removed the whole paragraph about 1981-1996 being the widely accepted definition for Millennials (the Jonathan Rauch paragraph) and gave WP:UNDUE weight to Strauss-Howe and the Resolution Foundation by citing outdated sources (and these sources also cite Pew more recently). So I don’t find your edits to be improvements. I also think it’s clear from your editing on the Millennials article that you disagree with Pew Research Center’s date ranges and believe that the Millennials date ranges should extend to the early 2000s, but we have to follow the WP:Neutral point of view policy, not our personal opinions on what the date ranges should be. Thanks. Some1 (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources i cited were from 2018-2023, there are some sources in the article that date from 2016-2017 and i dont see you deleting them, why? Im neutral about my edits, i didnt delete the 1981-1996 sources, i moved them into other sentences just to not make the article so repetitive about that date range, it seems that you are the one giving too much weight to the Pew’s range because there is no need to keep repeating that range in every source, just put them together as i did with the Economist and Reuters sources who use 1981-1996, you also deleted my Dictionary.com source which is a reliable source.You want neutrality? Then delete the excesive media outlets sources in the Pew’s definition or leave the media outlets sources in both RF and S&H.I get it, Pew’s is the most popular range, but that doesnt mean the other ones arent valid. WWIIhero (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WWIIhero Your editing isn’t neutral and your demands aren’t either. Anyway, the section is a bit long so I’ll work on getting it trimmed down in general. Some1 (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your last edit of Millennials#Date and age range definitions you garbled the grammar of the “Various media outlets sentence” in the second paragraph. Please fix this. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danbloch Yeah, I missed the word “including” in there. Should be fixed now [36]. Some1 (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danbloch Didn’t ping the first time. Some1 (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um, thanks, I guess? This is grammatical but it doesn’t make sense to me that you’ve removed the mention of Time, BBC News, the New York Times, and the Guardian but left the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statistics Canada. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danbloch Feel free to restore those mentions if you want; I only removed them cause the WWIIhero user was complaining about it on my talk page (scroll up on my talk page if you haven’t seen the discussion already). Some1 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I don’t see where he calls that out, but I’m trying not to get involved. I may add them back some time in the future if I’m working on the page. Cheers, Dan Bloch (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danbloch I believe it’s the “Then delete the excesive media outlets sources in the Pew’s definition or leave the media outlets sources in both RF and S&H.” part of his comment, since he was trying to add in the “Various media outlets have cited Strauss and Howe’s theory including The New York Times,[83] The Wall Street Journal,[84] Fortune,[85] The Australian[86] and Bussines Insider.[87]” and “Several british media outlets have cited Resolution Foundation’s definition including BBC,[77] Independent[78] and The Guardian.[79]” sentences.[37] (And it’s not like I needed to follow his demands, but it’s whatever.) Some1 (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead to this article is quite long, six paragraphs, whereas other generation articles usually have 3-4 paragraphs in the intro. Maybe some of it could be trimmed or moved into the body.–Jw00231 (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]