User Talk: Loriendrew

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
| archive=User talk:Loriendrew/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=13
| maxarchivesize=50K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=5
}}
For NewsLetters and Subscriptions click here ↗

<big>'''Think'''</big>
 
'''Think before you write.''' 
If you want to talk with me, follow these simple rules:

Make sure I can understand the message you are trying to convey

Please link back to the article to which you are referring

English only please, my native tongue of "New Yorker" was forcibly removed by NYC Dept of Ed speech therapists

In the words of Winston Churchill ↗: ''"short words are best, and the old words, when short, are best of all"''

'''To start a new conversation create a new section at the end of the page, easily done by clicking "New section" along the top menu. Putting something in the middle will not be seen.'''

Seminole Heights Page

Hello. My edits were completely constructive and factual. They provide a source that the "official seal" of Seminole Heights is a hoax. It also provides the original source the false seal claims to have come from—the 1912 Hillsborough High School Yearbook. I have access to the yearbook and this false seal does not appear anywhere in it's pages, and the faked seal doesn't even have the company name correct. Please cease reverting my changes as they are valid and sourced. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by 4thgenTPA (talk • contribs ↗)

Seminole Heights

When the source claims an image as proof that a seal existed in a year book, the only source that can refute that is an image of the original, unaltered source. What other source would you like me to provide? Certainly any other source would be second hand in this case. This isn't an image that disproves another image as factual, it's not being provided as a source to make a claim.— Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by 4thgenTPA (talk • contribs ↗)

Citation for Clara Harlow Barton article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Barton

These are two citations (the third doesn't have an image).

"Massachusetts, Town Clerk, Vital and Town Records, 1626-2001", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FHJ2-34C : Sat Mar 09 07:14:28 UTC 2024), Entry for Clarissa Harlow Barton and Stephen Barton, 25 December 1821.

"Massachusetts, Town Clerk, Vital and Town Records, 1626-2001", ''FamilySearch'' (<nowiki>https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F4NJ-PVD</nowiki> : Sun Mar 10 10:34:58 UTC 2024), Entry for Clarisa Harlow Barton and Stephen Barton, 25 December 1821.

The first will show you an image of a transcription and the second will show you the original. I wanted to add the original image to the page, but didn't know how. Would you consider adding it (or both, maybe)?

Thanks

Ranchorama (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
:FamilySearch is not considered a reliable source ↗ as it is predominantly user-generated content with a lack of editorial oversight; please see :WP:FAMILYSEARCH ↗. Given there are multiple highly reliable sources for the current spelling of the name, you should discuss this on the article's talk page to gain consensus for any change.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏''(ring-ring)'' 15:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
::The three sources for her name were not "user-generated" but primary sources. If you click on them you will see that. All three were from Massachusetts records; two were from “Massachusetts, Births and Christenings, 1639-1915" and the third was from "Massachusetts, Town Clerk, Vital and Town Records, 1626-2001" so I am going to revert back to what I had. Ranchorama (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
:Hello 👋 how's it going? Warrenzeiders024 (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

My Edits...

Hello you have reverted my edits, but why? The page looks like its in a pause and the conversation has not gone anywhere? How do I get this approved? ~2026-19599-51 ↗ (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

:This is for [<nowiki/>List of longest films ↗] ~2026-19599-51 ↗ (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
:Discuss at Talk:List of longest films ↗. There has been little support for including this item in the list.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏''(ring-ring)'' 13:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
::But the talk stopped would this be a Wikipedia No Contest rule? Or can I just add to the talk? ~2026-19599-51 ↗ (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Please add to the discussion and gain consensus to include.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏''(ring-ring)'' 17:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Issue in List of Longest Films talk page

There is a person in the talk section for List of Longest Films ↗ that keeps trying to insist that an unsourced Danish language website and a web page from the college whose students created The Freedom of Uselessness are good enough sources to add The Freedom of Uselessness to the aforementioned article. Would it be possible to help me try and resolve this, and if not who should I speak with? CY223 (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
:At this point the discussion can end. There is no consensus to continue. The temp account is likely involved with the "film". The IP behind it has used numerous TAs, a few of which appear to be blocked.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏''(ring-ring)'' 12:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
::Considering their poor English and insistence that a Danish language website be used as a source I believe them to be from Denmark and unaffiliated with those who made the Freedom of Uselessness. Regardless, someone in the talk page suggested that a permanent banner be put up in the talk page saying that the Freedom of Uselessness will never be added, perhaps something like that could be added? CY223 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Never say never, we just have to point to the previous discussions. The various temporary accounts are all WP:SPA ↗-type and appear to be geographically linked to the region of the Uni, regardless of their diction.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏''(ring-ring)'' 20:52, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
::::How did you figure out they're geographically linked? CY223 (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | May 2026 Backlog Drive ↗ | '''New pages patrol ↗''' 
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|

On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

Each review will earn 1 point.

Interested in taking part? '''Sign up here ↗'''.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. ↗
|}
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},

thumb|400px|New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026 ↗

'''Backlog update'''

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

'''2024 and 2025 NPP Awards'''

74px|left ↗{{no ping|JTtheOG}} was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
{{no ping|Hey man im josh}} and {{no ping|MPGuy2824}} won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

{{no ping|BoyTheKingCanDance}}, {{no ping|Rosiestep}}, {{no ping|SunDawn}}, and {{no ping|Vanderwaalforces}} were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame ↗ for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

'''January–February backlog drive'''

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to {{no ping|JTtheOG}}, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

'''May backlog drive'''

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026 ↗.

'''PageTriage'''

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed ↗ to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket ↗ if you're interested in following along.

{{refbegin}}
'''Reminders:'''

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord ↗.

Consider adding the project discussion page ↗ to your watchlist.

To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here ↗.

{{refend}}
</div>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Message to Loriendrew

Please see User talk:KuyaMoHirowo#User:Loriendrew and need you respond to the talk page. Thanks. —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs ↗) 01:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Personal relationships of Michael Jackson

You reverted my edits to the Personal relationships of Michael Jackson ↗ page. I appreciated your message in relation to this and thought it would be worthwhile to explain the edits. You will note that, albeit the change of '''-761''' characters appeared substantial, the vast majority of this change related to a long hyperlink and archive, both of which now lead to "Page not found" sites.

The substantive changes I made relate to sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson in 1993 and 2003 respectively.

As regards the 1993 allegations, I removed a claim that the State of California cited lack of evidence when it closed its investigation into Michael Jackson. That is an untrue and unsourced claim. The position is better expressed by articles in the LA Times ↗ and New York Times ↗ which note that prosecutors decided not to proceed with allegations against Mr. Jackson since "the 'primary alleged victim' had decided not to testify" but that "prosecutors said that the case would remain open and that charges could be filed if the boy changed his mind at any time before the statute of limitations expired".

As regards the 2003 allegations, I removed the following sentence: "During the five-month trial, Jackson faced allegations of child molestation and assertions that he had attempted to abduct the Arvizo family in a hot-air balloon." First, the reference to "facing allegations of child molestation" is duplicative with the previous sentence which states that Mr. Jackson had been indicted on four counts of molesting a minor. It adds nothing to the article. Second, the reference to "assertions that he had attempted to abduct the Arvizo family in a hot-air balloon" is entirely inappropriate when describing the People v. Jackson trial in general and high-level terms. It misleads the reader by implying that allegations relating to a hot-air balloon (which on their face appear ridiculous) formed a more significant part of the trial than they did. The citation is also a dead link, such that readers are not able to see the context.

In actual fact, there was never an allegation made that Mr. Jackson had attempted to abduct the Arvizo family in a hot-air balloon. Nor was a hot-air balloon mentioned multiple times. As was reported at the time, Janet Arvizo, the mother of the accuser, did state her fear that her three children would be "spirited away in a hot air balloon from Neverland" https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/radionational-breakfast/michael-jackson-trial/3448614 ↗. However, this is one small piece of testimony on one day of a much larger trial. There is also no suggestion it played any decisive role in the trial as a whole. It is also only one mention, as opposed to the "assertions" stated in the original, and it is was described as a fear as opposed to something alleged to have actually happened.

As such, this is plainly not something that should be included in an objective summary of People v. Jackson. Indeed, it is not even mentioned in the Trial of Michael Jackson ↗ Wikipedia page that is hyperlinked in the same section. Its inclusion here is plainly to lead readers to prejudge the 2003 - 2005 legal proceedings against Mr. Jackson as silly and baseless. It should be removed on that basis. I have reverted my good faith edits and provided a summary of why. ~2026-28078-15 ↗ (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Yangon United W.F.C

Why did you redirect Yangon United women club to Yangon United men. Do you really think is this same? ZyTun (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
:Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yangon United W.F.C ↗. You also have an article at Draft:Yangon United W.F.C. ↗. Per your talk page, after multiple submissions, this article has not met inclusion criteria. Develop it at Draft and follow the suggestions which have been provided for you.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏''(ring-ring)'' 22:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That anon editor

That Brian Parker & Jillian Cardarelli anon has a pattern of editing that has been difficult to get a handle on.

They have been going through articles, re-naming/adjusting references & then placing the newly-named refs onto statements that the refs do not verify.

They also seem to like to add DOBs to living people's articles without providing any sources.

I reported them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but was told their editing wasn't obvious spamming/vandalism but that a report could be made to ANI. The editor finally did respond to the warnings etc I left on their talk page, stating "It's my first time using source editing on Wikipedia, so I haven't done anything wrong. So, I don't want to be blocked again" but then '''after''' that post they edited the Cardarelli & Parker articles, continuing their problematic editing. I am thinking that all their edits need to be rolled-back because when I have spot-checked their edits, every single time there are errors/issues of failed verification refs in every article. I don't know exactly what to do lol - I usually avoid ANI as much as possible. - Shearonink (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:This is challenging as it is not clear-cut vandalism, even though it is. ANI will get the better protection (for wiki).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏''(ring-ring)'' 13:43, 5 July 2026 (UTC)