User talk:Anna Roy/Archive 6

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha

I see that you have requested page protection for Sokollu Mehmed Pasha because of edit warring. However, your own editing of that article seems to contain a significant amount of edit warring. I will remind you that being "right" is not a justification for edit warring, and that you may be blocked from editing if you continue. I am also doubtful about page protection. Since much of the edit warring has been conducted by established editors, semi-protection would be ineffective, and full protection (allowing only administrators to edit) would be required. The dispute has been going on for at least two years to my knowledge, so a short-term protection would not be much use. Preventing anyone other than administrators from editing ans article over a period of years is very much a last resort, to be used only in extreme situations. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Julia Donaldson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Play School and Crystal Palace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I'm hoping you were just having a bad day and/or were a little overzealous with your reverting tool of choice, but this is ridiculous. Which part of that IP edit is nonsense, exactly? I'm reinstating it in the article. If you have a valid reason for why it shouldn't be there, bring it up on the talk page of Poles.

Please, please try to be more attentive next time you revert content. Also, please let the user know on his/her talk page when you do revert an edit. IPs are people, too. Thanks, Accedietalk to me 04:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Have you heard of citation tag?

It seems you have removed all contributions of one IP user, using 'pls source' as your edit comment. How about adding just {{citation}} tag there rather than removing content? Do you have a ref to claim that any of them were wrong? There are a lot of unregistered users who are continuously vandalizing wiki pages, you can use your time in reverting such contributions, rather than removing unreferenced but non-controversial content added by them.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Please revert possible vanadalism

a user 122.175.172.6 has caused enough vandalism muliple times in the article abouth Jabalpur. I couldn't revert it myself as it has been done multiple times and I'm a little bit preoccupied right now, so brought the matter into your notice. Thanks in advance. :)

Duncan Hames MP

Good afternoon. On the Duncan Hames article, I noticed you removed his religion stating the AtheismUK reference was unreliable. It seems legit to me. Could you explain? Thanks. PhilMacD (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Apols for the delayed response. The background is this: the IP in question had been adding unsourced religious info to hundreds of BLP articles. Quite often editors do get a bee in their bonnet about adding religious practice to info boxes. When pushed, s/he then started adding Atheism UK as a source to a few. The guideline on reliable sources suggest that questionable sources "include websites and publications expressing views that are... promotional in nature". Atheism UK is explicitly an anti-religious campaigning organisation. After adding (mostly unsourced) religious info to about 300 articles the IP finally stopped. I hope that help explains the rationale. Act as you think fit over my edit. Best wishes Span (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for explaining. I'll ask Atheism UK if they can expand a little on the info they provide, and then it might become an acceptable source. Regards PhilMacD (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Martin edit

"move up awards and honours, they come before works listings." According to? I checked Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. But, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, Awards section goes after discography, and I don't know why it wouldn't be the same for actors. It just makes more sense to put the awards after the works the awards are for. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American poets category

Why can't the female American poets Marilyn Hacker and Sylvia Plath be in both categories?Are editors trying to limit the number of categories for particular articles for some reason?Jpcohen (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, Span. Much appreciated. Best! Jpcohen (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Gielgud

Why you deleted my changes in the article about John Gielgud? His ancestors were from Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so he is of Lithuanian nobility descent, not polish nobility and the meaning of his surname is also lithuanian origin.--Lappon (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes need to be cited by reliably sourced. Span (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Donaghy in Harringay

I appreciate your correction to my edit yesterday, but I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. There's no such place as 'the Green Lanes area of Harringay' He lived in Umfreville Road. No one who lives in Harringay or who knows the area would say 'the Green Lanes area of Harringay'. It makes no sense. Green Lanes is a road. The most likely term would be simply to say 'Harringay' (the neighbourhood as opposed to 'Haringey', the borough). Apart from that locals might say 'the Ladder' or 'Harringay Ladder', but never 'the Green Lanes area of Harringay'. BTW, I live here a few roads away and I know his widow. If we have to go there, I can ask her how Michael would have referred to it.hjuk (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly concerned one way or the other, but if you want clarity for readers, how about "off 'Green Lanes(London)|Green Lanes' in Harringay", then folks can click through and know all they need to know about where he lived. Don't understand the resistance to using the name of the neighbourhood - but your call. hjuk (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Howdy

Hey there Span! How have you been? We haven't spoke for a while. I've just been looking back at the early edits I made on here and to the Hepburn page, which has inspired me to come and say hi. They are pretty funny to look at now, I was so bad! I just had no clue of what was appropriate for this site. How did I ever manage to become the author of an FA? You were so gentle and encouraging with me though, and steered me in the right direction. :)

Are you still wiki-active? I disappeared for a few months (it wasn't a conscious decision, but I obviously needed a break) but seem to have been drawn back in...The problem I had with my arm and back is a lot better, which makes it far easier to contribute here. Me and another editor have completely redone the Charlie Chaplin page now, which is exciting. Hopefully we've done a decent job. I've also been rewriting the Julianne Moore article, which feels nice and simple in comparison (!) All the best, --Lobo (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nobel Prize

In response to your comment, I started a new format for highlighting disingenuous comments contributed by self-promotor PProctor and his sockpuppets. Let me know if you like it better. My goal is to make certain that innocent readers are not influenced by the flagrant self-promotion that is pervasive on that page.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Lopez birthdate

I've raised the matter of her birth year at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Kamala_Lopez to get more opinions. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Gielgud

Where is the reliable source for the sentence Gielgud's Catholic father, Franciszek Giełgud, born in 1880, was a descendant of a Polish noble family residing at a manor in a town called Giełgudyszki (now Gelgaudiškis in Marijampolė County, Lithuania).? I will have to delete this sentence, because polish nobility was from kingdom of Poland and Lithuanian nobility was from Grand Duchy of Lithuania. As the town Gielgudyszki was in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and never belonged to kingdom of Poland, it is quite clear that this information is incorrect.

Ruskin

Your idea of decent prose doesn't coincide with mine. It is however impolite to revert wholesale in the way you do so I took the liberty of reverting yours. Flitterby (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I didn't know about that rule and stopped after Snowball said it. Although he wasn't very clear because he didn't give me a link. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TED/Rupert Sheldrake/Graham Hancock Controversy

Hello Spanglej,

This is certainly a contentious issue with heated discussion on both sides. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that it is "not a notable controversy", but wikipedia is about facts not opinions. As a matter of record there have been multiple official statements about this controversy from TED's curator Chris Anderson and other TED staff, thousands of comments on their own blog as well as coverage in outside blogs both pro and con. Chris Anderson's direct involvement on this issue moves this squarely into the notable section, alongside the other controversies involving Sarah Silverman, Nassim Taleb, Sarah Lacy, Nick Hanuaer, and Eddie Huang. Best, OpenMind OpenMind 18:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenMind (talk • contribs)

Replied on article talk page Span (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Lemn Sissay

Hi Spangle, I don't know how to reply to you in the thread from the section you've used. The BBC article referrenced is incorrect in many places. I've spent most of my life proving that I existed through the maladministration of the care system. I'm simply trying to get the facts correct. The Citations that point to blog.lemnsissay.com are where the BBC documentary is shown for the public since it was shown on TV in 1995. Can you see this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claptonpond1 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Your advice on Iain M Banks info

Hi there, I've never posted to wikipedia. Apologies if i am breaking conventions rules. I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that Iain M. Banks became the president of The ScienceFictionBookClub.org in April 2012. His own chosen titles is "Acting Honorary Non-Executive Figurehead President Elect pro tem (trainee)." We never traded on this publicly but in light of his terminal cancer announcement I want to celebrate his contribution to SF and literature, as well as show what a fun loving guy he is. We have a picture of his accepting a "MR PRESIDENT Acting Honorary Non-Executive Figurehead President Elect pro tem (trainee)" T-shirt :) Please do let me know if you think would make a useful contribution to his entry in WIkipedia. Gerard - organiser of ScienceFictionBookClub.org YourGloriousLeader (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC) |}[reply]

Not sure if my last reply got lost of not. sorry. Anyway I have emails from iain accepting his position/title and there is a photo of him posing with a T shirt bearing his full title. Yes a line would be more than enough. the photographer has given permission to have the photo posted online. If you want to be involved in posting these online (pending your verifying what I say) I think it would add legitimacy. I've been debating all day on whether to post this online or not but in the end its celebrating his relationship with his fans so I think its at least worthy of consideration, as it clearly show that. YourGloriousLeader (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think maybe the photo might be evidence enough. Can you release into the Commons? It's a bit of a fiddle but probably the best way. Have you done it before? It's easiest if the photo is your own work, as it sounds like it is. Let me know if you have any problems. My email link is given on the left hand side of my page here. Best wishes Span (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for the spring cheer and barnstar for articles. Parkwells (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

Excuse me, can you please point out on your reversion, where I have altered someone else comments? Thank you. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station

As per last night's discussion on the article's talk page, I watched the documentary (in ref #1) and added the timings in HTML comments throughout the text. The article as it stands is largely consistent with the content of the documentary. Hope it helps. Regards. Bouchecl (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar :) I think I fixed most problems in the history paragraph with a new source (in English) I borrowed from frwiki. Feel free to edit, if needed. Regards. Bouchecl (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External Links - Eden

I'm not entirely sure why you've removed links I had added to some natural history and science broadcaster pages? They were to the specific talent pages on the Eden website and were entirely relevant to the pages in that they contain info on the programmes they appear in (alongside text, photos and videos). Is this really spam?

Thanks Bantamsam (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lemn Sissay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atherton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Paul Nash (artist)

Thank you for removing the vandalism from this article. Nash is a painter close to my heart. I was born and raised at Langley Marish and my parents are buried close to his grave.

There has been a lot of vandalism on this page over the years and I find it hard to understand, but then there is nothing rational about vandalism. Maybe it happens a lot, but of the 200+ pages I watch this is one of two which are frequent victims.

LynwoodF (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Iain Banks

You have been one of the most active contributors to Iain Banks. As you may know, he is going to pass away in the near future :( Perhaps you will be interested in the initiative to improve his article as a parting gift from us. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any conflicts. If you run into any, please let me know and I'll do my best to moderate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General thanks

Thanks for your help the other day clearing up all of the unnecessary Polish Roman Catholic category additions, talk about tedious. And also thanks for reverting the stupid quote from the Doris Lessing page today. I had reverted it earlier and some user gave some crappy reason for adding it back in, even though its usage is trivial and unfair. I didn't want to 3RR over it, so I'm glad someone with some common sense dropped in. Anyway, keep up the great work! All best. Icarus of old (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was tedious but we used to get manic Catholic Catters every week not so long ago. This is first I've seen for a long time. I imagine someone might try to put the Lessing quote back. Will keep an eye. It seems like you've come back to WP after a long break. Thanks for all your editing. I hope you find the work rewarding. All the best Span (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Picture of Dorian Gray

The Picture of Dorian Gray is regarded by many as Faustian. I don't see it as such in the sense that the devil never makes an offer "I offer you X short term gain" in exchange for the residual rights to your soul. Help me understand it in this context and I would agree.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I see you have been posting at the Poetry Project page, concerning the deletion of your images. They were nominated because they have not been uploaded properly. We need to state the source of the photo and have the proper licence, else they will be deleted. As with this file, the error message given is "This file has no source information. Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. Unless a source is given, the image will be deleted". I suggest loading images on to the Commons (stating source and licence). I hope that helps. Span (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been informing WP:POETRY per WT:FFD discussion that related wikiprojects should be informed when images related to the wikiprojects come up for deletion. I am not uploading the images, they are not my images. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New message

Hello, Anna Roy. You have new messages at Inglok's talk page. -- 21:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm interested to know what you think of what I have written on my talk page. Inglok (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the "American novelists" category from women

There's been a great deal of discussion about this all over the media today, not to mention all over certain parts of Wikipedia. Those of us who are re-adding the category are correcting an error. It may end up happening that the categories get merged, but for the moment it's quite clear to almost everyone that it's wrong to have the main category consist only of men. So please stop undoing my re-adding of the main category, and please take a look at the discussions going on on the category pages and the merge-discussion page. --Elysdir (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for editing the paragraph about "From The Diary of Sally Hemings" on the Sandra Seaton page. I am part of group who has been working on the page. Do you have any suggestions about facilitating the removal of the heading at the top of the page? The heading states that there is a need for additional citations and sources. Citations and resources have been added but the heading remains.Grb1848 (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grb, thanks for your message about Sandra Seaton. There are still large sections of the article that are not referenced, so that tag can't really be removed yet. It wouldn't take much work for the extra cites to be added. The article has had a problem with fans adding material that comes across as promotional, that is, heavily biasing the content to Seaton's advantage. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia and we aim for the tone you might find in Britannica. We try and keep things factual as the article is not a fan page or a blog. I'm not suggesting you have been involved in this but you might pass this info along to others in your group. Seaton is best served by having a strong, objective, factual, well referenced article rather than a hagiography. I hope that makes sense. Have a great weekend. Best wishes Span (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spanglej, Thank you for removing the tag. Question: The further reading entries for Kansas City Star, Allmusic, Georgia Rowe (Timeout), Washington Post, Opera News, and Jason Serinus were removed and would be helpful if replaced. These links provide objective evaluations of Seaton's work by respected critical sources. Best wishes. Grb1848 (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spanglej, Sorry for any confusion. I corrected Shuffle Along date and typos at 13:14 then tried to revise the "talk" at 13:15 to sound more polite. Didn't work. Should have left well enough alone. Went right back to my original correction at 13:18. Thanks for the helpful comment on further reading entries and their place in articles. Have a great evening. Grb1848 (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sound of Contact

Hi, Spanglej. Thank you for your help with the Sound of Contact and Simon Collins pages. It's greatly appreciated, and you've clarified some things that I believe some of us didn't fully understand. It means a lot! I have left a few messages in the Sound of Contact talk page regarding whether or not the tags at the top of the page should remain. If you could take a look at the page and review its sources, that would be great. Thanks again. Vuzor (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will. You've done a lot of good work today. We all learn as we go. Best wishes Span (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Spanglej. Winkelvi did a rewrite of my previous version of the Sound of Contact article. While I am glad he wanted to help, I'm unsure whether it's much of an improvement. There are a number of redundancies in the revision, many of which are not present in the original. If I may ask, could you please review the two versions, compare them, and help determine which version is more suitable? I think some of the points on his talk page are valid, and I would remove a few of the links to the Dimensionaut album, but I'd like to know which version we should edit from. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Winkelvi's version (20:38, 30 April 2013): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sound_of_Contact&oldid=552939647
My version (19:38, 30 April 2013): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sound_of_Contact&oldid=552931497
Update: I've decided to take the best from both versions and splice them together into the current version. Please let me know what you think of it. I'm not sure if Winkelvi disagrees with me, so I would like to ask if you, as a third party, could review the page as of the (23:16, 30 April 2013‎) version. Thank you. Vuzor (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sound_of_Contact&oldid=552960595

I think you're doing good work and being generous spirited with it. If you have differences of opinion with other editors, I suggest working it out on the talk page or in edit summaries. Edit summaries are extremely helpful for allowing others to follow the rationale of your changes. Have fun. All best wishes Span (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning process

I see you reverted my edits to the article which is fine but I wish you had contributed to the discussion on the talk page before making the edit. Cheers FlatOut 03:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on article talk page Span (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kiki's Delivery Service

Hi, Spanglej. I commend you for your efforts in trying to improve the Kiki's Delivery Service article. I am considering a possible FA push for a possible TFA on July 22, 2014, the 25th anniversary of the film's premiere. However, I am concerned about a few things in the article itself. For example, we may need some sources to expand the production section as well as the critical reception section. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a bit of book coverage, so seeking out some decent crit refs shouldn't be too hard. Do you have access to Questia, Credo, Oxford Reference etc? It could be quite a succinct article to write. The Summer Wars article might be a good example to refer to for form. Literature and biogs are more my thing but am happy to keep and eye and contribute where I can. Good luck with it. Span (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am one of the top contributors of the Summer Wars article actually and I improved it to GA status. I have access to a couple of resources as well. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on getting it to GA. Span (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for the help. I was told that they are not needed for certain actions, but now I have read the page you linked, and will try to do better. I'm not a Wikipedian, but I'd like to help where I can. Optimom (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are a valued Wikipedian as you contribute here. We aim to do the best we can. Happy editing. Span (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I appear to be messing up a lot. I will be more careful. :) Optimom (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, there is quite a lot to read, so look for me here again soon. Thank you for helping me. Optimom (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. No worries. Span (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The American comma

Please see the talk page for the Attenborough article regarding your reversion, and the reason why a self-revert would be the right thing to do. - SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Span (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works columns

Hi, what's the matter with the works columns? They make the display compact, clear, and attractive, and they do no harm to anyone - people with mobile browsers, IE etc won't see them - so the benefit/cost is all on the benefit side. What reason do you have for removing them? "Not needed" is certainly not a reason. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are not many works. I think we should only use columns where there is an overlong list. They make the list less clear. Span (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a fair number; length is a measurable factor, let me see. On my screen they take up 20 centimetres - on a laptop that is easily a whole screen, quite long enough to set one thinking about how to organize it better. At the risk of labouring the point, the division into columns is essentially cost-free, and presents the information better. At the moment we have a large area of whitespace to the right of the Works: to no benefit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INFOBOXFLAG

Span, just thought I'd let you know that a user who's been interacting with User:ProudIrishAspie, namely User:Lesser Cartographies has edited WP:INFOBOXFLAG so that the MOS now explicitly permits flags in military biog infoboxes. I naturally disagree with that change and would like to revert it, but I don't know if I'd get any flack for reverting an MOS edit. Thought I would pass it along. Cdtew (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it and was thinking of reverting. I think Cartographies didn't quite know what s/he was wading into. I'm sure it was all done in very good faith. Span (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and reverted it just because no consensus has apparently been reached, especially in light of the catalog of discussions in Ed!'s essay WP:MILICONS. Since no consensus has been reached, and the MOS requires consensus to edit, I feel that Cartographies' edit was in error, albeit most likely in good faith. Cdtew (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because

Sometimes?... I don't have time to fix every single problem in every Wikipedia article I happen to read. *Sometimes* I spend a lot of time fixing up poorly-sourced or badly-written articles and sometimes I have to choose to put a few tags on them instead (either because of time or interest constraints). When I put more than one maintenance tag on an article it is because I am trying to be as specific and therefore as helpful as possible, so someone else who comes along and who has the time to perhaps fix the issues and is maybe not an editor with 15,000 or 20,000 or whatever edits, so maybe that someone can look at the tags and go "Oh! This tags says this article needs more footnotes, I'll see what those are so I can add them." or "This tag says the sources are unreliable...I wonder what that means, I'll click on the linkage within the tag to see what they are" or something along those lines. And, re your edit summary on 'Pat Carroll' why not make the changes yourself instead of removing tags? Well, maybe it's because you do what you can when you can...well, same goes for me. And re your removal of tags on 'Adam Small', IMDb is considered an unreliable source and 'Connolly and Conolly' is a public relations blurb about Small giving an endorsement. So the article doesn't just need additional citations, it would seem to be completely unsourced according to Wikipedia practices/guidelines, (your formatting fixes, however, are really a great improvement). Shearonink (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would count this edit as drive-by tagging. It required under 20 keystrokes to fix the problem. I think it's better to assume that most tags you add will stay on the article for five years or more. In this case, you added two 'citations needed' tags and an 'unreliable refs' tag. No article needs two citation tags and at the point there were no references. The two sources were given as external links, essentially. 'Connolly and Conolly' is an independent company that makes string instruments. I don't see a problem with that profile. Span (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because I placed a few tags on two articles you seem to consider me guilty of something...maybe of being some kind of a "Habitual Drive-By Tagger/Deletionist/Crusher of Articles". My editing here on Wikipedia, the sheer amount of time I spend helping new editors in the IRC Help Channel, the number of AFC Reviews I've done and the time I've spent doing them, my Barnstars, my DYKs, should disabuse you of that notion. I can tell that you also care greatly about Wikipedia, that you fix up many BLPs and work on articles with literary connections. It's good for Wikipedia that it has editors like you and me who care so much about what happens on these pages, that it welcomes editors with different editing styles/interests and has many areas that always need many kinds of attention.
Heh, and I'm thinking that if tags just sit on articles without any action for five years or more then maybe WP needs to re-think tags... Shearonink (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the Pat Carroll (actress) article, tightening up the text and adding good refs (the old Ref #1 was actually just a Note), so I removed the BLP/maintenance template since it's now outdated/invalid. I did look into more/better references for the Small article, but everything I found seems to be carbon-copies of the same basic text that appears at the Connolly and Connolly site. Verifying aspects of notability for musicians & notability for composers might be an issue for this particular WP:BLP. Shearonink (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's true there isn't much written at all about Mr. Small (unable to find any decent interviews or articles), but he was nominated three times for Emmys...I have no idea why those three Emmy nominations hadn't shown up in my research. So, notability now established just doesn't seem to be much independently written about the guy. Good luck with any further improvements. Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
General apologies for my comments. I'm sure they were venting frustration with Wikipedia, not you. I should learn, one of these days, not to edit on days when WP seems like it was dreamt up by a drunk madman sleeping under a bush. You do wonderful work. I am under no illusion that you are 'crusher of articles' or anything else. Mea culpa. Best wishes Span (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muchly appreciated

Drinks are on me - let's have some mugs of the world-famous "WP" brew and then get back to editing funfunfun.

Cheers! Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)|}[reply]