User talk:Bromley86

The World Forum

Hi, I have removed the PROD from this article as it is not eligible - it was previously deleted via this method. If you still feel the topic is non-notable, please take to WP:AFD. GiantSnowman 18:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log - which only I can see as an admin - confirms it was deleted by PROD on 30 September 2006. Don't think there was anyway you could have known so don't worry! GiantSnowman 10:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks! Bromley86 (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese diaspora

Don't worry you are going back to my 5-6 year edits.... I was so glad actually to come back to these edits, some of my first in Wikipedia. We have come a long way. These were approximate figures. We had to start somewhere. but later on, numbers were introduced from a report by the Maronite foundation and the numbers were tabulated. Some later on added some more figures were added for more reecnt countries like Denmark, Sweden, Armenia etc with no references, thus the notation "citation needed". They are as good and as bad as the ones with citations frankly. Of course this matter is not an exact science, and it all depends on what one means by "Lebanese" as some "Lebanese" were from the Ottoman Empire where all were called Syrians with no distinction. There were no countries like Lebanon, Syria, Palestine then, so no Lebanese just Syrian Ottomans (in Latin America they would be even called Turcos..) In north America they would be lumped as people from the Near east. that includes Armenians, Syriacs, Kurds, which are separate but part of what we call Lebanese or Syrian etc What we have today on the page are just "educated guesses", not real scientifically obtained statistic figures. That's what I can say.... But still better than never. werldwayd (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lebanese diaspora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GCC (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) 13:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Freedom of religion in Kuwait (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Ashura and Court of cassation
Ian Henderson (police officer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Spink

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Henderson

Ian Henderson was born in Nairobi, Kenya not Aberdeen! In fact he never went to Aberdeen in his life. The reason I know this is that I am a relative! It shows how one should not believe much that has been written about Ian Henderson in the press if they can't even get his birth place correct!Zayed7 (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Can I suggest you then refer to the obituary in The Times of London which is more accurate?Zayed7 (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Lauren Booth, 6 July 2012.png

Thanks for uploading File:Lauren Booth, 6 July 2012.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demographics of Kuwait, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persians (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) 11:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I noticed you added a link to a Daily Mail story here, in support of a story about a living person. I thought I would point out that per WP:BLPSOURCES our policy is not to do this. In the future it would be better to get a more respectable source for material like this. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Not convinced that the Mail is, at least in this case, a tabloid; obviously it's the same physical size as ever, but the article looks well sourced to me. It doesn't look to be any worse than a local paper, The Argus, which presumably wouldn't be classified as a tabloid in terms of journalism. I've used the latter in place of your ref as it mentions Bebo. Bromley86 (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple discussions at the noticeboards have confirmed that for our purposes the Mail is a tabloid and cannot be used to source anything remotely controversial on a BLP. Thanks for adding a better source. --John (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1860 massacres

I wonder why you are attached to the idea the "the Druze killed 10,000 Christians" during this horrible violence. There were also Druze killed; numbers are approximate on both sides; admittedly more Christians probably died, but why cite simplistic and almost certainly exaggerated numbers? I will amend the citation with a reference to a more recent and very accurate book, William Harris' Lebanon: History 600-2011. But I would be interested to know why you seem to feel strongly about the previous and seemingly less accurate version of events. (says Tobias Homer)

No attachment; I'm not too bothered who kills who now, so I really don't care about who did over 100 years ago. However you were using a cite that said A to support your statement B. I'm also slightly concerned that you're downplaying ("several thousand" instead of "about 10,000"). I've not looked into it, other than to quickly scan the wikilinked article on the 1860 conflict, but I think you're wrong if you believe "more Christians probably died"; vastly more Christians definitely died, according to the sources linked to date. Bromley86 (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the relative numbers but the Maronites actually started the fight (by shooting a partridge on Druze land). That is how petty things get there (I have written 2 books about Lebanon btw). I don't think one wants to get down to the "who shot the first partridge" level; and "killed by Druzes" is pretty provocative given that it was a fight which the Christians lost. The Middle East does not have much pity on the losing side (have you seen the Assyrian "tree of heads" in the British Museum?) Maybe the problem is the sources linked are really shoddy. The CIA handbook! an old piece of c**p. I will try to find tome to improve on this. (says Tobias Homer)

Ah, I see; must be pretty frustrating for you to see poorly written/sourced stuff on something you've published on. On that subject, and bearing in mind I'm not the WP police, you might want to be careful with WP:COI (specifically WP:SELFCITE), especially when adding a certain book to Further Reading or External Link sections (which, depending on one's view, might fall under WP:SELFPROMOTE). Please don't let this stop you rewriting the various articles though, as they certainly need it.
BTW, I added the "Tobias Homer" so you'd get a notification. In case you didn't know, ending you posts with four tildes will mean WP places your name & a timestamp after your comments, like this (in my case): Bromley86 (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demographics of the Arab League, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Indian and Bantu (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) 10:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Bromley86 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, after reverting an admin enforcing BLP you should be glad you can still edit. Seriously, don't do this again. --John (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That'd make more sense if your name had flashing lights on it or something. I wouldn't know an admin if I tripped over one. Bromley86 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I apologise. I thought you were aware from the talk page discussion (which you were a part of) that another user had asked me to intervene. It isn't smart to revert anyone, ever, who is editing using BLP as the reason. Anyway, I'm sorry if I handled that clumsily, I really thought you were aware. --John (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Apology accepted. I thought HBH was busing in a fellow believer for a discussion, not that they were appealing to a higher authority. Bromley86 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail

Looks like you listened to my advice and took the smart move of posting in WP:RSN :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, been away for a bit. Thanks again! Bromley86 (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

infobox

As to the purpose of the infobox being to summarize what is in the text of the article, please see this. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Ahmed

How does it not read like a controversy. Nestle was brought to a hearing by the european parliament on marketing pratices, that pushed baby milk formula in Pakistan. The formula when combined with dirty drinking water led to the deaths of children in country.

Lord Ahmed took a paid position from Nestle, and went on a sponsored trip while lobbying for the company. Considering the amount of focus he keeps on Pakistani politics, this is pertinant information.

Plus, the hearing and its topics are in EU and UN records, the paid position and sponsored trip and the lobbying have all been documented.

I do not understand the objection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamaaz Khan (talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the section I created for this on the article's Talk page. Bromley86 (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International reactions to Fitna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antara. 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) 10:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demographics of Suriname, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch. 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) 09:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa

Hi, I deleted all 13 redirects you tagged, but WP:CSD#G1 was not the right tag as they weren't "nonsense". It's hard to understand how a redirect that works could possibly be deletable by G1. WP:CSD#R3 would be reasonable if it weren't for the fact that they were not recently created. Because of the motivation of the redirect creator, I deleted them per WP:CSD#G3 (vandalism).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bbb23 & sorry for getting it wrong. Is there a way of tagging multiple articles with a G3, or should I just add it to the other redirects? There aren't as many as I thought at first, but there's probably another 20 or so. Bromley86 (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Perhaps you could also offer a perspective on the summary of Pastoral care of homosexual persons, since a) your contributions would be helpful and b) Elizium appears to have lost interest? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even if you decide you don't want to comment on that part, I've still got some questions for you in other sections of the talk page...let me know if you need a refresher, I'd still like to know what you have to say. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not replying the first time Roscelese. I take it you're talking about this section? Bromley86 (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I meant the bit about how we summarize some of its contents, not info on its publication (it's all over the place; ctrl-f "mitigate", maybe), although I did have an unanswered question to you about the publication in this section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry, but I'm probably not going to have time to look into that one. I did reply in the certain source section (although it was effectively the same position as before). Bromley86 (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to ask you to have a look at what I see Roscelese already asked you to look at. It regards Roscelese's edit at 20:54 yesterday, and my response at 21:47. If you happen to think it would be good to respond to a request made by both of us, you will doubtless like to know that the question concerns section 11 of Homosexualitatis problema and the commentary on it in this source. If anyone can formulate a statement acceptable to both of us, you can. Esoglou (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tank battle source

I added the book where you mentioned Indians were only thought to be defeated at chawinda based on your statement, you might want to respond here as it is being turned into a conduct issue rather than a content dispute where no consensus even at RSN was achieved. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Topgun. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Hum"

The title of that article is WP:OR - the sources describe it as low frequency noise or infrasound, the former redirects to the latter. The article at The Hum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a WP:POVFORK. You are more than welcome to add the colloquial descriptions of "The Foo Hum" to the Infrasound article, but the correct title for the content is not "The Hum" because as far as I can tell that exact term is not in any of the reliable sources at all. In adding content from the old article, please be careful to avoid the numerous unreliable and primary sources that supported most of its text. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JzG. Wrong place to make your case. Please discuss it on the talk page to reach a consensus before blanking, or submit an AfD, or similar. Bromley86 (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Bromley86. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- NQ (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your help NQ - email and files received. Bromley86 (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anal bleaching, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmopolitan. 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) 08:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pearlasia Gamboa

Last month, you participated in a deletion discussion for several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa. All participants were in favor of deletion for several of them, but three were convoluted. The majority were in favor of deleting each one, but these three got one don't-delete each, and the whole discussion was difficult to assess; Bromley86 had a good description in calling it "this whole convoluted and, frankly, nuts area", and the two most helpful votes were split between deletes and don't-deletes. Since none of the redirects are outright harmful, I figured we'd get the best result if I just kept them and immediately relisted them; I've created new nominations for them at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 4, and your participation would be welcome. Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nyttend & sorry I couldn't make it. It all went the way I'd have voted though. Bromley86 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with the Elton Mayo entry

Hello. You and I had disagreements regarding the editing of the Elton Mayo entry. However, we worked out those disagreements by exchanging our thoughts on the talk page. Another editor has reversed many of my edits of the entry although I justify my edits on the talk page. Although I write on the talk page to answer him about his reversing my edits and his additional edits, he ignores what I have written and goes full speed ahead. I think that editor is too opinionated with regard with regard to Elton Mayo. It is as if the editor is canonizing Mayo. I would appreciate it if you would look into the matter. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iss. Sorry, but I've too much going on IRL to get dragged back into that one :) . I would say that I don't agree with the tone of the current body ("Was Mayo a psychologist?", followed by "Although the Encyclopedia Britannica and other encyclopedias, published books and journal articles state that Mayo was a psychologist", as I have never thought that's how an encyclopaedia should be written. That's not to excuse the absolute mess that the Lead has become. My position, as I said back when I was following the article, is "I wholeheartedly support your proposed solution, i.e. retain psychologist in the lead and discuss the difficulty in classifying him in the body." IMO, you went too far in terms of OR (or at least phrasing) in the body, but I had other things to do.
Anyway, good luck with it all. I don't mean the above as an attack, I merely wanted to make my position clear. Bromley86 (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I appreciate what you wrote. I turned around on the point about leaving "psychologist" in the lead, and including in the body material on the problem of classifying Mayo as a psychologist.
I don't view what you wrote as an attack. You have been fair in responding. I understand that you are busy with other parts of Wikipedia. Iss246 (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bromley86. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
Message added 15:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- NQ (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your revert

Please revert your revert here. The headline of the source is "FBI: US identifies masked militant in beheading videos". There is no evidence that James Comey ever used the description "Jihadi John". The reverted content is unencyclopaedic and unrepresentative of confirmed realities. I am yet to hear any such primary source make direct description in this way. Please do not POV push. As stated there is a clear personal argument for this reference to ".. John" not to be used and yet Wikipedia goes even beyond what I consider the abusive spin in sources so as to promote a terminology. This, even if it were barely justified, is not our role. Please also make reference to counterbalance the content of your last edit summary. GregKaye 09:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Fraid I can't. I've no POV to push here; rather it is your unusual fixation on protecting the good name of The Beatles that is creating the problem. You need to understand that the fact that no primary source has named him JJ is irrelevant. Even if (more likely when) it's decided that Emwazi is his commonname, JJ will still carry name recognition and will need to be used repeatedly, for historical purposes, in the article.
Get the article renamed to Mohammed Emwazi and many, but not all, of your issues will be addressed. But inserting the unencyclopaedic and clunky work-around text that you did just because you don't like the expression Jihadi John doesn't work for me.
What I can do, if you'd like, is remove that whole para from Nickname. There's a, I think, strong argument that the first sentence doesn't belong in a section on nicknames and it is already included in the ID section. Likewise, the second sentence can sensibly be moved to that section. Bromley86 (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a POV to advocate a name that has been contested by a source close to the namesake. Wikipedia is not a place for WP:SOAPBOXing. The Jihadi John name was only added into the source article as a secondary reference. There is nothing here about being faithful to source material.
I also have a supposition that, in developing the article a sequence such as the following may have happened. An editor may have heard of relevant topic in the news that could be added to the Jihadi John article. The editor then does an internet search on "topic Jihadi John". They then add another Jihadi John focussed reference to the article. In the meantime you refuse to permit a more straightforward representation of used referenced source material. Any of the edits that you mention may well be beneficial to bringing a more balanced and faithfully source referenced content. GregKaye 15:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bollocks. Bromley86 (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please substantiate that or give your policy based justification. In articles and broadcasts that I have witnessed recently the content may start with a mention of "Jihadi John" (which, when this happens, will often be done with accompanying reference to "Mohammed Emwazi") and then the content will continue to describe issues surrounding Emwazi's situation. Its late to make the point but your revert to "Jihadi John was identified by the FBI on 25 September 2014" made little sense. In the later situation this format of words might have been correctly used to say something like: "Mohammed Emwazi was identified as being the *** who has been otherwise named as Jihadi John". This is the way round that the English language most naturally works. Me edit to "The masked militant in beheading videos was identified by the FBI on 25 September 2014" was an improvement. GregKaye 12:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was fairly clear. I don't appreciate people throwing around accusations of POV pushing when they clearly have no idea of how reporting what secondary sources say works. Everyone in the English speaking world knows him as Jihadi John. There's a question as to whether Emwazi or JJ is currently more recognisable, but that's a different issue. Your personal crusade to somehow save the reputation of Lennon & The Beatles is your own business. And your "the masked militant" etc. was not an improvement. Bromley86 (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Emwazi's residence

Um, I don't know if you know much about the geography of London, or about local government boundaries, or about my connection with the City of Westminster which received a modest degree of publicity six years ago, but I can assure you absolutely that whatever the Guardian said, the Emwazi family definitely never lived in Kensington. Both schools and the university which Mohammed Emwazi attended are in the City of Westminster. Based on [1] they moved from Maida Vale ward in Westminster, to Westbourne ward from 1996, a different property in Westbourne ward from 1998, then to Regents Park ward, to Maida Vale ward, and most recently Queen's Park ward, all within Westminster.

I daresay if one of the ward councillors for Westbourne ward who was elected in 2002 had kept one of the electoral registers from that date, say in a filing cabinet right next to their computer on which they were able to edit Wikipedia, they could immediately check and find entries for the Emwazi family in Desborough Close in Westbourne Ward in the City of Westminster. I speculate, of course. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam. The point is, if you change the data, change the cite. Otherwise we end up with a situation where the text appears to be supported, but in fact is not. Obviously, should any hypothetical councillor have access to that old register, it's debatable whether that could be used to support a point if it's not commonly available (say in a library); if it is, then that's fine. If you have other news sources (I've exceeded my Telegraph limit this month, so I can't see if it explicitly states where he lived) that support the change, feel free to use those as the support.
You might also want to make a quick posting to the Talk page, especially if there's only one supporting source, as otherwise someone later may change it back to agree with the Guardian. Bromley86 (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Election results table

Hi Bromley. I guess you'll see I undid your change to the results table layout. The current version is the standard format for election results tables on Wikipedia, so please don't change it. Cheers, Number 57 11:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 57. As currently displayed it's incorrect, as the percentages don't stack. 40,203,948 is not 54.4% of 74,691,290, it's 54.4% of 74,691,290-780,592. How do you square that circle? Bromley86 (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not incorrect and the percentages do stack, as they add to 100. It's clear from the table that the invalid ballots are excluded by the fact that there is a dash in that cell. Number 57 11:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's simply not true. Sure, the percentages add up to 100%, but as I said the 100% figure is not the one that you're indicating it is. Can you point me to a well-patrolled article where I can raise this? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it is true – this is a standard way of presenting electoral results in tabular format, and is the method used on thousands of articles on Wikipedia. What do you mean by a "well-patrolled article"? Number 57 11:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A well-patrolled article would be one with more footfall than the Russian one, which doesn't have an active Talk page. There seems little point in raising it there as we'd be the only two that'd see it :) . I'd assumed from your posts that you'd know a sensible one to raise it on; no problem if you don't. Bromley86 (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a gander at some of the highly-rated (FA-A) articles on the Elections & Refs project; picked on the more modern ones. New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009, South Australian state election, 2006 & Romanian presidential election, 2014 don't present the total cast (including invalids/informals) as 100%. Likewise United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010 (assuming there wasn't the incredibly-unlikely situation of zero invalids).
Puerto Rican constitutional referendum, 2012 does, but then it allocates a percentage to the invalids rather than excluding them, so statistically that's kosher.
Moving onto the GA class. South_African_general_election,_2014#National_Assembly presents it as I'd expect; note the use of 100% twice, which also works for me. I'll stop looking for the moment. Bromley86 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the Russian article talk page, you'll be able to find examples of where standard practice isn't used... For some reason American election articles don't tend to follow the normal rules (or even the formalised naming convention); more recent elections also tend to attract editors who aren't familiar with the standard format – if you look at the Romanian presidential election series, six of the eight articles use the usual format and the most recent two don't. But anyway, the best place for you to raise any queries is probably the WP:E&R talk page. Number 57 12:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, shall do. Bromley86 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Priti Patel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 09:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Westminster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harrow. 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) 08:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser Diesel

I removed the tags because you'd nominated them for deletion as spam; if simply having a redirect with a company name is spam, we might as well delete articles with similar titles. Of course, it would be spam if the redirects were something like "Lesser Diesel Enterprises is the best!", but I don't think there's a problem with merely having a redirect for Lesser Diesel Enterprises. Is there some other criterion that you think applies? If so, let me know, and I'll look into that. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can always send it to WP:RFD if you want. If you want to do that but aren't familiar with the how-to, I can help. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Save yourself the time :-) Basically, RFD works like other deletion discussions: someone nominates a page, using a specific rationale for why the page should be deleted, others vote on the proposal and explain their votes, and an admin eventually evaluates the votes and their reasoning and decides whether the community thinks that the page should be kept or deleted. A rationale is ideally a couple of sentences, although diffs or other links that would help should be included; if you write a rationale for nomination, I'll happily create the nomination with what you've written. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

I am just wondering what is needed to expand the Principality of Ongal page, thanks. Humshom (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hum. Belated reply, and I suspect my earlier post to the Ongal talk page covers this, but it's my opinion (based on reporting in reliable sources) that it doesn't need expanding and may need contracting. Likewise, I'd like to see a consistent pairing back of the current micronation listing/pages. YMMV, of course. Bromley86 (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ongal

Just keep a cool head, there's no actual urgency to the matter. If we iron out a clear consensus on Talk (anonymous editors who are WP:NOTHERE don't matter), things will settle down. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Debutante Ball

I have seen that you have been editing the International Debutante Ball article, but you seem to have removed a considerable amount of sentences that were supported by references. I would appreciate it if we could work together on this? Could you also take a look at the Bal des Débutantes article which seems to mostly contain promotional content? Thanks--BeFriendly (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this the wrong way BF, but given the history of socking associated with IDB, and given that you're a new a/c but know your way around WP, I have to assume you're just the current iteration of wikideb1. Bromley86 (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong exactly with the edits that you have removed? They were all referring to legitimate reliable references. Removing information with references does not make sense. Isn't it a decent thing to do to discuss the editing of articles with other editors who would like to edit the same article? It does not make sense to remove information from this article, when other debutante articles, such as Bal des débutantes, mostly contain promotional content.--BeFriendly (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tell you to feel free to improve those articles, but as you aren't meant to be editing whilst banned for socking, and as you were reverted last time you tried it, that'd just be wasted effort on your part. The references I removed were not, as you maintain, legitimate. There were a number of instances of quotes that were entirely made up, a number of instances where the references didn't support the text, a number of instances where the references were either to blogs (not reliable) or to things like pictures within otherwise-reliable sources (undue weight), etc. Bromley86 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those edits were referring to legitimate newspapers, such as the New York Times. I do not see what is wrong with this article if you compare it to the Bal des débutantes article that seems to be written almost entirely like an advertisement. Most of the information there is not referring to any references/sources and contains a lot of promotional statements. Would you mind looking at that article too? What do you mean with "whilst banned for socking" by the way? Would you also please tell me (or somehow show me a link to) which sentences you removed exactly from the IDB article? That way, I could see which references those sentences were referring to. Thank you for your help.--BeFriendly (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One example was a reference removed from the IDB article referring to a quote from the Great Gatsby. That had a good reference, I believe, but the Bal des débutantes article is making a vague statement referring to the Great Gatsby and Anna Karenina and does not have a reference to support that. Why is that allowed? It does not really make sense to me why the Bal des débutantes article is allowed to remain like an advertisement.--BeFriendly (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Best if you take this to the Talk page of the IDB article; with reference to the socking, if I'm mistaken we'll then find out soon enough. You may well be correct about other articles on WP, but I'm working through the IDB article atm and am not responsible for content in other articles I've not reviewed.
Re. the Gastby sentence in IDB: yes it was supported by the cite, but it was promotional and not neutral. Marie Claire (indirectly) call it "Uber glamerous",[2] but we don't put that in despite it being in a RS. Neutral language, encyclopaedia, etc. Bromley86 (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me (or show me a link to) which sentences you removed exactly from the IDB article so far? That way, I can see which references those sentences were referring to. I would sincerely appreciate that - thank you--BeFriendly (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, ask on the IDB Talk page. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Bromley86. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Press Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Record. 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) 10:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latin

My mom was a Latin teacher <g>, leaving me with way-too-much knowledge of spelling variants - the "dilixisse" spelling in not an "error", and is found in a number of books. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cressida Bonas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 10:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hawar Islands may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • from the Qatari mainland whilst being about {{convert|10|nmi|km}} from the main islands of Bahrain),<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4EOcBE6VIikC&printsec=frontcover#v=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 4 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Henry (broadcaster), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Women's Weekly. 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) 11:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Banhammer key

What I meant was that I haven't blocked anyone over the edit war, even though there are probably grounds to do so. My approach is to give editors the chance to discuss issues and reach a consensus if they are able to. Should there be clear evidence that someone is trying to flog a dead horse, or is not listening, that option remains open. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mjroots, understood. Bromley86 (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Rats (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Rats. 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) 09:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Please familiarise yourself with the speedy deletion criteria before tagging articles for deletion. In particular, your tagging of Holy Empire of Reunion was so bad to make me question whether it is vandalism. G4 is for reposts of deleted content that are identical or virtually identical to the original. Are you seriously suggesting that a page with this kind of edit history is identical to what was deleted ten years ago? If you cannot prove that content is a repost, don't disrupt a page with a frivolous speedy tag. Nyttend (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the current page, in its original version, was still completely different from what was deleted several years ago. Once again, do not tag something for G4 unless you have access to the original deleted content, e.g. if it's visible through the Internet Archive, or if you have solid clues such as the appearance of [edit] in the new article's text. Period. Meanwhile, thank you for the pointer to the other article, which I deleted in accordance with your tagging. Nyttend (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Bromley86. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Gestrid (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Teahouse

Bromley86, there is no doubt that you are contributing in good faith at the Teahouse, but you have posted incorrect information twice lately, regarding anti-vandalism bots and COI editors writing drafts through AFC. Please do your best to provide accurate and reasonably complete answers. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shall do. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vera Wang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vogue. 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) 09:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kigeli V of Rwanda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kamembe. 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) 09:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rwandese National Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rwandan. 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) 09:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Im Erhfb

But why rejected editing the Fethullah Gulen? Fethullah Gulen the terroristEeseceli (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article's Talk page. And please stick to one account. Bromley86 (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mibambwe IV Rutarindwa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Praeger. 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) 09:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert De Niro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair. 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) 09:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hollow Moon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hollow Moon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. I have completed a first pass (the next will be to respond to your replies) and have found very little wrong. I hope to see the article pass shortly. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hollow Moon

The article Hollow Moon you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hollow Moon for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm happy with everything you've done, and the article, except for the In lit section which I consider vital support for the article - one leg is basically Halley, the other the idea's use in serious novels, so it would be improper to throw either away. The book mentions are reliable citations (if lacking page numbers, making verification more difficult) but there really ought to be a separate source that discusses the hollow moon concept as used in these books, i.e. a reliable source, secondary with respect to the novels. I hope you can see why this is important and hence where I'm coming from on this! All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see Chiswick Chap. I thought you were after a source that listed them all, but you're just after individual sources. I'll have a go at finding them. Bromley86 (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An individual source that discussed them all would be perfect but may not exist; a couple that discuss most of them between them would already be a great improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bromley86. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hollow Moon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hollow Moon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Bromley86. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Redskins

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not think much about removing this notice, since that discussion is moot.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's just there for posterity. Bromley86 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if we could be in this conversational deadlock over Redskin (slang) if talking face to face. However, since this has not happened to me before, after 11 years on WP, I don't know what to do about it, and am not inclined to take more than my share of responsibility.

I am a 67 year old white male American born in Washington, DC. I was never a Redskins fan, so do not think I have any more "skin in the game" on this topic than you. I was as oblivious to the Native American viewpoint as the average white person. Ten years ago I encountered the article Native American mascot controversy entirely by accident. The topic and its related articles have become the main focus of my WP editing. The specific article on Redskin has been peripheral, and I had not dug deeply into the content before. Having now done so, it is clear to me that the academic sources provide more questions than answers.

I have a BA in psych and an MA in Urban Studies/Community Development, but worked for the US Federal Government for 30 years ending up as an IT Specialist (Programmer/Analyist). I have maintained my academic expertise by reading broadly in the social sciences, but maintaining a focus on cognition. I have been taking classes at George Mason University since retiring. Thus I have access to a the university library, including online journals.

The psychological perspective on language seems to be very different than the perspective represented by Ives Goddard. Thus we have Psycholinguistics and Anthropological linguistics with many theoretical differences. Goddard presents his analysis of the sources he found without the theoretical discussion I might expect, given the obscurity of the topic. It baffles me what audience this article is addressing; other academics, or the general public given his awareness of the public controversy? For the academic basis of the Redskin article, I rely upon Shoemaker, whose article presents all the difficulties of saying anything definitive about the period, which has undermined my regard for Goddard's sweeping generalizations. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, show a little good faith please. I have not edited your comment, merely moved it to your section, and there's nothing in the guidelines that precludes that. I note that you were quite happy to edit me when you'd previously removed that section, but you didn't see me getting worked up over it because it wasn't important. I have corrected a link that I'd pointed incorrectly. I have corrected a page reference that, frankly, was immediately obviously a typo. Bromley86 (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Hey I'm sorry but I deleted your comment on my talk page, but I did read it before I did. I was in the edit conflict page and needed to get some things off my chest between me and Yamla and I think your edit may have deleted Yamla's response. I know you started the section, hope you understand. --71.81.74.166 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I see Yamla's talk page it's clearer. Please understand that Yamla blocked me and then blanket reverted hundreds of my edits without warning, all based on a vague suspicion. I guess I'm not capable of being any more polite than suggesting he could have warned me first. I can only guess that he thinks I am different person than the one he blocked, or he simply cannot bring himself to accept anything I say to him as the truth. Whatever the case his confusion about the whole thing appears to run very deep. Sorry you got drug into this. Thank you for the kind words and for your time. --71.81.74.166 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

just wanted to say I did read your section

Answering would take more hamsters than I currently have available though and more of materials than I want to do at the moment. But I did read it will answer. Elinruby (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Elinruby. Like WADC, I'm not sure how I missed your post on NPOV. Bromley86 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Your GA nomination of Tessarakonteres

The article Tessarakonteres you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Tessarakonteres for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jackyd101 -- Jackyd101 (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tessarakonteres GA

Hello Bromley86, just a heads up that I left a review on the GA page for this article a few days back and I wasn't sure if you'd seen it. Let me know when you've had a look and fixed up the one problem (tidy and expand the lede). Best regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bromley86. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bromley86. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Guantanamo list

Hello, Bromley86. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Guantanamo list".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Kingdom of Enclava" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kingdom of Enclava and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Princedom of Ongal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Hollow Moon

Hollow Moon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 00:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]