CodeTalker
![]() Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
merciless revert of my edit
editBro. I watched Puss Gets the Boot so many times that I realized y'all left out the juicy part of the plot. Big mistake bro. TjazForint (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
About reverted edit
edit@CodeTalker: Sorry for this edition [[1]]. I'm Brazilian and I'm not so good at English Language. PixelWhite (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
editThe Original Barnstar | |
You are a hardworking Wikipedian. StopLookingAtMe1 (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC) |
COI policy and your edit reversion.
editPlease see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Just because it's sourced does not mean it has no COI. Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) If you think something is promotional, you are free to use Template:Promo. But there’s no reason to place a COI tag on something where there’s no proof of COI editing. GoldRomean (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Mentalism lead paragraph edit
editHey just wanted to say that last one was my bad. I went to go look up where it was in Tricks of the Mind and realized the essay I was basing my edit off of was actually in Brown's Pure Effect. Thanks for correcting me, apologies for wasting your time. If I did want to edit that lead paragraph, to emphasize how claims of psychology and body language reading are often exaggerated and much more a part of the presentation than the method, how should I approach doing so? I'm sure there are some articles on this editing topic I have yet to read, any recommendations? Xobr21037 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Xobr21037, thanks for responding. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article. See MOS:LEAD for information about the lead. Nothing should be added to the lead unless it is already stated and sourced in the body. Also there is usually no need to add citations to the lead, since everything there should already be explained in more detail and cited in the body of the article. The relevant part of the body seems to be the Techniques section, which does already explain that "
subtle verbal cues, an acute sensitivity to body language, etc.
" are offered as explanations of mentalism, but that the actual explanation is often "classic magicians' trickery
". This seems to be already summarized by the lead which says "ordinary conjuring means", natural human abilities (i.e. reading body language, refined intuition, subliminal communication, emotional intelligence), and an in-depth understanding of key principles from human psychology or other behavioral sciences.
Perhaps you feel that this lead sentence puts too much emphasis on non-conjuring explanations; if so I would not object to rewriting this to place less emphasis on "psychological" explanations. However, in my opinion, the article is more in need of citations for the Techniques section, which has some unsourced and weakly sourced claims. It would be especially useful to have more sources to support the Principle section's claim that magician's trickery is the basis for most mentalism techniques. Currently that is cited to a guidebook which AFAICT describes some useful mentalism techniques but is not an overview of how all mentalists operate. I hope this helps. CodeTalker (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)- That does help! I'll get right on it Xobr21037 (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
W Las Vegas
editPlease do not change information (or add information) As you did in W Las Vegas without my permission. The rules are located in the talk. Thank you. 2600:8801:2995:1A00:B9C9:5D55:8475:6BA9 (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Symbols in C
editsee also dollar sign. Am I being too picky? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- @JMF I agree, it's silly to have an entry that just says the character has no meaning in that language. CodeTalker (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)