User talk:[e-mail]

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

To anyone who has a question about my username please be advised that I will not be changing it, although I did change my signature. Thanks for your understanding. NOTE: Robert is one of the few editors who is not obliged to change his username, as his account was created many years before the rules were changed - Alison ^❤ 02:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC) (diff)[reply]

About Me

I realize that I have strong deletionist and immediatist instincts, which I will work to control. I have OCD which is why I often edit for MOS consistency, which can mean anything from dd/mm/yyyy or mm/dd/yyyy formatting to fixing or tagging barereflinks to removing or delinking (depending on the age and relative importance) of redlinks. Nobody said I was perfect. [e-mail] 01:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your thank-you notices

Your notices help to keep me going and doing my small part in making Wikipedia an ever-improving public resource. Thanks! —Strudjum

Words of wisdom from a cherished source

Robert - feel free to blank this again, as is your right, but can I just ask you to slow down for a minute and step back from this? You're fast approaching old territory again. I know you mean well here, and I've supported you in the past. Just ... chill, take it easy, and careful with the comments about others - Alison ^❤ 22:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETION OF INFOBOXES

I occasionally delete infoboxes from articles I have edited if the infobox in question is almost empty or otherwise of little or no utility, based on the following from WP:MOS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)): “The most important group to consider are the casual readers of Wikipedia, who will never do any significant editing. Infobox templates that contain many blank fields, question marks and unknowns present an unprofessional appearance, diminishing Wikipedia’s reputation as a high-quality encyclopedia.” [e-mail] 01:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same thing about citation needed templates, or any other cleanup templates for that matter, but if I remember correctly, they're part of what got me to start editing in the first place. Is appearing good more important than actually being good? Benjamin (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edna O'Brien Article

I removed the Philip Larkin quote from the Edna O'Brien because I felt it was very obtuse to content of the actual article. Yes, O'Brien "talked about sex" before the "sexual revolution" but despite how well-known the Philip Larkin poem is as pertaining to this period, it sounds absolutely obtuse to somebody who has not read the poem. While the reference is kind of funny, I strongly feel that Philip Larkin cannot be trust to be some sort of Dionysius Exiguus as to precisely dating the "sexual revolution", unless of course you know of a case where O'Brien mentions the situation herself, as pertaining to the line of the poem. As it stands, Larkin seems to have said nothing about Edna O'Brien's career directly, (and she seems to have said nothing about his. Robinson, Roth, O'Hagan and the others are specifically talking about her career. The fact that Larkin is mentioned at all is because some genius at the Telegraph wanted a good opening.

Besides saying "three years before the Chatterley Ban and the Beatles First LP" sounds to somebody who doesn't know the poem (and evens some who do)...

1. Like it the publication of Country Girls three years before the expurged publication of Lady Chatterlay's Lover, at which point Ms. O'Brien would have been "introducing sexual intercourse to Ireland" at the tender age of negative five years old.

2. Like the expurged publication of Lady Chatterley's Lover was the same date as the Beatle's First LP.

3. Like nobody talked about or had sex before Philip Larkin first had sex, a time which he admits was rather late.

This would be clever writing if it were in a newspaper, or even an academic article, but on Wikipedia, it feels like we're shoe-horning in a reference where it does not belong. I would strongly suggest removing it, if for no other reason than translation. Philip Larkin is largely an Anglo-American phenomena, and Ms. O'Brien's books are still widely translated.

If you do want to keep it, I would strongly suggest writing at least a rudimentary article about Annus Mirabilis so that everybody who is confused about the reference is simply redirected to the Philip Larkin page and assumes something sexual about his and Ms. O'Brien's relationship (which I'm certain never existed).

P.S. I only slightly edited this on realizing it was a quote from a review. But I stand by what I said. The reference is quite obtuse and there are far better ways about talking about the sociological effect of Ms. O'Brien's writings about sex. --Artimaean (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying you don't mind my deleting the Philip Larkin line?--Artimaean (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tehrani

Indeed. Notability does not depend on having English-language sources about you; the featured article Chrisye is built almost entirely on Indonesian-language references. That being said, if I'm not mistaken Google Translate handles Farsi, in which case the references should be fairly easy to verify. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spaces between parameters in citation templates

Hello, I would like to ask you not to close up any spaces you may find between the parameters in citations that use templates, as you have at Jimmy Savile. These spaces have been deliberately put there by me and others. It makes no difference to the output that the reader sees, but it improves the layout of the editing window and the diffs, so clarifying what is where and making editing easier. Thanks -- Alarics (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Dick Coetzee

While I can appreciate the need for fairness on the Wiki, stripping the Vlakplaas reference from Coetzee is akin to writing an article about Heinrich Himmler without mentioning the SS or Josef Mengele without mentioning Auschwitz. It is part of the legacy. He was commander of a police group that went out and acted as a death squad without regard or remorse. he did not deny it and was pardoned only from prosecution after he turned evidence over to the UN and those investigating war crimes. I have left off the apartheid reference, but replaced the Vlakplaas reference on his tag line. He once gave an account of what it was like to barbeque someone on a spit, including the smell of the meat. Here is some further reading on the subject. http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-03-08-jacques-pauw-on-vlakplaas-apartheid-assassin-dirk-coetzee/ Sunnydoo (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Hello. Thank you for setting me straight on the Category: Disease-Related Deaths. Now that I understand what it categorizes, it does make sense as a catch-all category. The only problem I see with it is how huge the list would be, and what use would someone make of it. For instance, I gather statistics on specific causes of death, and the category lists are very useful to me. I just don't know if it's necessary to have such a general category. Those are my thoughts. - Michael David (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I love your Edit Summary on the revision of the Fay Kanin article. To truly see the light, you have to first admit to having been in the darkness. I was. - Michael David (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV

If RS sources report that person x though y about z, that is not "POV". If reported as such. POV is wp editor POV. Similarly, the article already has a "puppy dog" description of one brother -- it is in the article for the same reason. Thus, please do not delete RS supported views of person x by person y, under the theory that they are "pov." Furthermore, no blp issues apply. And, even if they did, we report what the RSs say, with a public figure.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby (Bangladeshi actress)

Hi! I saw you moved the page from Eamin Haque Bobby, though the actress is popularly known as Bobby but I guess the previous title was more accurate since you can get more sources through searching with that name. Thanks --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Yip Doesn't hate you. Yip got all of his data from Sallieparker's talk page (including your name and mother's name). I was posing as her in an effort to get her block (which looks like it's going to be lifted) extended. "Greasing the wheels of justice" when WP gets stuck.

Seriously, check out her talk page before an admin takes it down. I have no issue with you (and you actually seem like a stand up editor - one of the reasons why I took issue with Ms. Parker's boychick comment). That being said, I don't know you and have no intention of finding anything about you in the "world".

CongerEelSolo (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Islamberg, New York

Thanks for that, glad I could help out! I'm not much of an editor these days, but I use the site and understand the policies for the most part, so I think it's good to clear up things like that when we see them. Lordrosemount (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Cher

First of all, thanks for you helpful edits! I will do some minor changes according to what I've talked to other users on previous PR's. If you don't agree with some change I'll made, we can discuss on the talk page. Cheers, Lordelliott (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've made the changes. I've restored this passage: "Throughout the 1980s, Cher appeared in film roles where she served as a social intermediary to disenfranchised male characters.[210] She showcased her status as an independent woman by interacting with Eric Stoltz's elephantiasis victim in Mask (1985), Liam Neeson's mute homeless veteran in Suspect (1987), and Nicolas Cage's socially isolated baker with a wooden hand in Moonstruck (1987).[210] Mermaids (1990) made use of her "strong, sexually assertive" image.[211] According to Jeff Yarbrough of The Advocate, Cher was "one of the first superstars to 'play gay' with compassion and without a hint of stereotyping", as she portrayed a lesbian in the 1983 film Silkwood.[212]"

Why do you think it isn't valuable to the article? We can discuss on the article's talk page. Overall, great work. Lordelliott (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For reporting Joan Crawford to WP:RFPP, and alerting me to my typo. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Roberts

I almost never preview. There's always the risk that I'll lose my work. In this case I had no idea what to do after I saw it, and figured either I could figure out later how to fix it or someone else could.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on "help", amazingly, led to something that actually helped. I didn't have the time to solve the problem yesterday and the computer where I was then was harder to use.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hedy Lamarr

Long time no chat. Sorry if you already know all this: we can't cite unpublished/unverifiable sources for a fact in an article footnote, such as an email to you, as in this edit. I won't revert, because the book agrees. But it is best practice with private sources to bring OTRS into it. So, forward the email discussion you had with Loder (the less edited the better) to OTRS (volunteers-otrs(at)wikimedia.org) requesting that OTRS confirm on article Talk or in the article edit summary, "1914 verified - OTRS ticket #####". OTRS does that when contacted by the public, to throw an anchor onto disputes over birth year. Alternatively, have Hedy's son email them directly. But either way, please, in the introductory text of the email, include some way to verify that the email really did come from Loder (phone number, or website which shows the email address, or business contact, book, journal article etc. Not facebook, myspace, etc). I've done it before - if questions, ask. --Lexein (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Please respond here - I watchlist.[reply]

Bump - I don't mean to be a pest, but I'd like to help lock down the birthdate, by getting your email into OTRS if possible. Can I help? --Lexein (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wonder why you deleted the hedy-lamarr.org link i posted on her page and stated that it was redundant? It's not on the list and it's a very thorough website that I have developed from many books and magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annpham (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The website already listed is hedylamarr.org. The page I added is hedy-lamarr.org. There's a dash sign between hedy and lamarr. That's a completely different website--Annpham (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Hey! What's up? Thanks for your appreciation for my edit on Dick Wolf being inducted into the Television Hall of Fame. Hope to hear from you again soon on Wikipedia. Mr. Brain (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked vandal

If you are interested, following this, there is this. Once the editor has unambiguously been warned, I am happy to block if more vandalism follows, even just a little more vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse racism

Sorry about accepting that edit, I think it may not have been constructive but I thought it was removing original research at the time. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 02:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I am not well versed in wikipedia edits, but as the guest contributor who performed the 26/10/15 edit, could you guide me through your logic for undoing/resetting the adjustment? I assure you it was intended to be constructive (and fail to see how it might be misconstrued otherwise) and furthermore have expounded on my reasoning in the appropriate talk page. If you could explain to me how the addition of 'initially' is a better contribution to clarity in the first sentence than removing the superfluous section altogether, I would be most appreciative. Thanks again [guest] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.95.66.44 (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and did not know how else to message you but am working on the reverse racism page for a project. Why did you delete my addition of Dear White People? It's relevant to the topic, and certainly adds more balance to the page which seems to insist that reverse racism is 100 per cent real, and that the controversy is from those claiming it doesn't exist(perf logical explanations vs the other way round as it should be) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MahnoorLodhi (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strabane Page

Hi Robert,

I am from Strabane. I would assume you are too? I would like to edit the page as I have valued and up to date information to contribute. The information is not correct, especially regarding Education given that the largest Secondary School in the town is not even mentioned. Also the page while obviously mentioning the past deserves to focus on the positive information and economic advances that are occurring. You are refusing to let others contribute and I would ask you kindly to please stop deleting my additions to the page. It is rude and uncalled for. Everyone has a right to contribute to pages. You do not own it.

BMT85 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)BMT[reply]

Murray and the others that I spoke to through chat help have been helpful. You could have been more helpful with all due respect especially give the fact that I am new (which I'm sure you are aware of). I have been finding out about sandbox and will also cite my information. The current information on the page is out of date and will be amended in the coming days when I have sufficient time. The education section is completely wrong and the Cenus information is also out of date. I am posting this to make you aware of my intentions. I want to make the page better, more relevant and beneficial.

BMT85 (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)BMT85[reply]

Thank you for your apology. You unfortunately didn't welcome me which is why I felt under threat. I have a better grasp of things now and I'm glad we've been able to talk and sort it out. When I make another edit in the coming days, all guidance and helpful suggestions are appreciated. Best wishes BMT85 (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)BMT85[reply]

Tsk, tsk

Really!? Quis separabit? 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:[e-mail]! That's not my edit that you linked, but I did see it — and I agreed with that edit and did not revert it. The cited Forbes piece does not support the content saying O'Keefe has no interest in actual investigative journalism (although it does refer to "O’Keefe’s brand of ‘journalism’" in scare quotes). If you want our Wikipedia article to state in Wikipedia's voice that O'Keefe has a "complete lack of interest in actual investigative journalism", you'll need a reliable source which clearly conveys that. So why the "tsk, tsk"? Or was that meant for another editor? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, I'm fairly certain your message was mistakenly placed on my Talk page. I've moved it here in case you wished to see to its proper handling. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy 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 the Balkans, 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.

Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links

Hi [e-mail],

Thank you for thanking me for my yesterday's edit. I invested three hours in that edit by fixing invalid or dead links and activating archive urls. However, you reverted it by mistake, without explanation, and so the invalid links are back. How can we fix it now? Today, I will invest a few hours of work to do again what I did yesterday. I will check all 150 links.

By the way, the external link you deleted yesterday is not dead, it works today (maybe there was a problem connecting to the server). The use of the alphabetic order in the media-interviews-section is not an ideal solution as Bosnia comes first, but the book deals with Croatia and it has been published in Croatia (and a large number of interviews too). Goran Miljan ^[who?] and Matthew Feeney ^[who?] shouldn't get a tag since the reference at the end of the quote includes the full bibliographic info.--Darigon Jr. (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Darigon Jr. -- even when they are tagged "permanent dead links"? OK, if you say so. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re:List of Massacres in Yugoslavia

This is a fair question, so I'll take the points as you've given them. After I closed the original ANI thread you opened, the two of you did show some movement towards talk page consensus and then editing article space, however between my closing the aforementioned thread at 07:32 19 November and the time I locked down the page the two of you had a dozen edits back and forth, one third of which consisted of reverting the other editor. The two of you are each one step away from getting blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, and then whatever position the two of you advocate for dies with the loss of reputation adhered from the block log - simply stated, anything you two do after the block here would be considered disruptive. In addition, locking down the article page forces the two of you work together to find consensus on the talk page or other venue, since you can not edit the article this also acts a barometer to gauge who is likely to be the more problematic editor. Often, but not always, its the person who can't edit who complains the loudest, though that does remain to be seen here.

Insofar as I can see you've been the one whose worked to bridge the gap, and for that you should be commended, however you need to calm down a little. It helps no one if you panic and act before you think. Take a day or two and consider all you options - like for RFC - and how you want to word things, keeping in mind that posts should be civil, and we will see what develops. I am not opposed to lifting page protection early, I did the same exact thing to the article Battle of the Alamo earlier this year and lifted the protection when the parties reached an agreement on what would go in the article, but the community needs to see progress on the unresolved issues, and I need to know that the two of you aren't going to have at each other the minute that page protection vanishes. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection of Joe Carter (country musician)

Hi there. I notice that you redirected Joe Carter (country musician) to Sara Carter. This does not seem like the best target, since they are different people; Sara is Joe's mother. Can I ask why you did not redirect it to the more relevant article on the Carter Family?--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz: OK -- done. As per your suggestion. Quis separabit? 02:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pola Negri

Thanks for adding the reflink, I was trying to decide btwn multiple sources and couldn't find anything "just right". You found the perfect one tres vite! Merci! MKMMAT (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template Deletion

I apologize. I was actually trying to delete vandalism, and in doing so, I accidentally deleted templates. Sorry about that. CLCStudent (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you start discussion at Talk:Yisrael Kristal about the researchers?

Greetings! I see that you and Mikkitobi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) are in a content dispute about the researchers' names being included in Yisrael Kristal. Since the other editor is new, could you go ahead and open discussion about the matter at the talk page? That way, there's a record on the article's talk page about the outcome and it's easier for other editors to participate. Plus, I'd like to get this matter settled without having to issue blocks for edit warring. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see these two messages at my talk page. Mikkitobi wanted "an admin to review this case and make a ruling". I know you know about 3RR already, but...for the sake of proper notification, I've now told you the same thing I've told him: sort it out on the article's talk page so I don't have to block either of you for 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal

Some of the content you are removing from the day articles under the rationale "rv non-notable entries" are actually quite notable subjects with a great deal of historical significance. For example, see some of the content that I have restored after your removals, along with the edit summaries I provided: diff, diff, diff. Please consider adding more detailed edit summaries explaining your stances. Also please consider researching the subjects more before removing their entries, if you haven't already been doing so. North America^1000 06:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing dead links?

Hi Rms125a. It is sometimes confusing to follow your edits, when you make a lot of changes at once while also splitting paragraphs, so viewing a diff is hard to follow (as with some of your recent changes to Rob Ford). One thing I'm wondering is if you are aware of our WP:KDL guideline. Thanks, Paul Erik ^(talk)(contribs) 17:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Also, thanks for the improvements to the article, which has been on my watchlist a very long time. Can I ask that you separate out your edits so that splitting paragraphs do not appear in the same diff as other changes you make? Otherwise it makes it very difficult for your fellow editors to follow what you are doing. (One more very minor point: You seem to use the abbreviation "rv" to indicate you are removing something. Most people understand "rv" to mean "revert". The abbreviation "rm" is generally use to indicate "removing" something.) Thanks again. Paul Erik ^(talk)(contribs) 18:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paul Erik -- of course. Some paragraphs I split because I thought it might make easier navigation and/by separating more important details from lesser ones, but I will follow your advice. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good. Just to be clear, I did not have any problem with you splitting the paragraphs in the way that you did; it's just that I would advise you to do so in a single edit, and use another edit to make other changes you are wanting to make. This will make it easier for your fellow editors. Thanks! Paul Erik ^(talk)(contribs) 18:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this diff from an edit you made. Again, while I have no doubt that most (or all) of your edits there are constructive, it is very difficult to follow what changes you are making, as you split paragraphs, remove spacing, and similar things that make it hard for your fellow editors to follow what is going on in the diff. Please consider making a series of edits instead, to reduce the possibility of misunderstanding, and to help the rest of us to review the changes you have made. Paul Erik ^(talk)(contribs) 03:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Erik: Well, other editors have since reverted. I know I didn't delete any dead or unused links, I left them for those who know how to do WAYBACK, so I am not sure exactly to what you are referring. I am going to sleep soon, it's after midnight in NYC, but I'll study the diffs in the morning. Yours, Quis separabit? 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Erik: "as you split paragraphs, remove spacing, and similar things". OK, I got it, as opposed to "I did not have any problem with you splitting the paragraphs in the way that you did; it's just that I would advise you to do so in a single edit, and use another edit to make other changes you are wanting to make." You're right. I have to slow down and keep like-minded edits in separate edit summaries. I think I get it. A lot of it is trivial but which in the aggregate might look confusing. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fewer changes at a time, and keeping like-minded edits together, should reduce the possibility of confusion. Thanks a lot, Rms125a. Paul Erik ^(talk)(contribs) 12:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a, in this diff, I cannot tell what you have "trimmed" (as a portion of your edit summary states). When you also change spacing or line-breaks at the same time, the diff becomes unreadable for your fellow editors. Please look at it and try to understand how it appears to others who would like to review your edits. (It is surprising that I need to explain this to such a long-time editor.) I'm guessing that there is nothing in your edit that I would disagree with, but again, I can't tell by looking at the diff. Please do more than reassure me. Please change the way you are editing. Paul Erik ^(talk)(contribs) 15:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first paragraph of Help:Diff#Simplifying diffs. Paul Erik ^(talk)(contribs) 15:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

calling for discussion

Could you please return to Talk:Delmer Berg and explain this edit? Geo Swan (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan -- Errr, OK. I trimmed some of the paragraphs and sectioned them out more evenly. Don't think I removed anything vital but revert as you see fit. Quis separabit? 21:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You also rewrote perfectly adequate references, making them unreadable -- and thus unmaintainable. Geo Swan (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan:

A) I really don't understand what "making them unreadable -- and thus unmaintainable" means. Sorry.

B) Moreover, the sum total of my recent edits to the article was 768 characters; you have added at least 4,726. Clearly you are doing far more than correcting any misediting on my part.

Yours, Quis separabit? 22:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you not make use of diffs? I do.
  I often return to articles I worked on, to update them, and find other contributors have made lots of edits to them. That would potentially be a good thing -- if those other contributors were making corrections to the article's intellectual content; or if they were adding new material. What I often find is a disappointment -- busy contributors had made trivial, or completely pointless, changes to the article's metadata, without altering the article's intellectual content, at all.
  Ideally, I should be able to call up the article's revision history, and ask to be shown all the changes since my last edit. I might find someone else has already made the update I thought was necessary.
  What I often find is a diff that misleading seems to show the article has been entirely rewritten. Yet, when I have spent a very considerable amount of time, stepping through those revisions, one at a time, I find there weren't any changes to the article's intellectual content, at all.
  Line endings are significant to diffs. Breaking a paragraph up into two paragraphs looks, to a diff, like two paragraphs of brand new material. Similarly, removing line endings, confuses diff.
  I find {{cite}} templates, where each field has its own line, far easier to read, and maintain, than those where someone has put the entire template on one line. But I don't rewrite the exisiting {{cite}} templates, in an article, to make them conform to my favourite rendering. If I have to fix someone else's {{cite}} template, and they put everything on a single line, I make the extra effort to keep my corrections on that line -- so diff will still give useful results.
• WRT my 4,726 bytes -- there is a little "history" button at the top of the article page. If you press it, it shows you when the article was changed, how many bytes were changed -- and the edit summary where the contributor said what they did in that edit.
  There is a button named "prev", that shows you how the article was changed, in that edit. In the edit marked "fix refs", I restored the references you rendered unreadable and unmaintainable. If you click on the left hand circle next to that edit, and click on the right hand circle next to my most recent edit, and click on the button labelled "compare selected versions" you can see all the changes I made, since I fixed the references.
  So, do you really know how to use diffs, yourself, and you asked about by 4,726 bytes because you couldn't be bothered to do another diff? If you have somehow managed to be a prolific contributor here, without ever learning how to collaborate effectively with other contributors, by learning how to read and use contribution histories, then I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to stop, and learn how, before you make another edit. If you know how, and didn't do so for any other reason, then I will remind you that this is supposed to be a collaborative project, where we all do our best to work together. Geo Swan (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorism deaths in Ireland

Hi, you tagged Category:Terrorism deaths in Ireland and Category:Terrorism deaths in the Republic of Ireland, but I can't find a discussion for them. – Fayenatic London 00:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic -- Hi. I forgot about that. It was just a merger suggestion, not a deletion discussion. Forget about it. You can remove the tags. Thanks, Quis separabit? 00:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha Christie article

Hi I saw that you deleted my addition to the paragraph on literary sources of Agatha Christie's titles. I found the information about the origin of "The Mousetrap" in the Wikipedia article of that name, which contains the following reference: [1] Will that do? Gnangbade (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Morgan, Janet. Agatha Christie, A Biography. (Page 291) Collins, 1984 ISBN 0-00-216330-6.

Notability of individuals on DOTY pages

Is there a policy/consensus that you can show me which indicates "globally notable" is the criterion for inclusion, and not "The births and deaths listed on this page are only for people for whom there is a Wikipedia article (no red links and no redirects). Please do not add yourself (unless there is a Wikipedia article about you), or anyone without a Wikipedia article. Any entry added for anyone without an article will be deleted." as listed in the edit window? If there is such a criterion, it strikes me as entirely subjective. What metric could be used for saying, for instance, that an Indonesian actor with over seventy film credits and a forty-year career is less "globally notable" than a Filipina actress with a ten-year career and barely a dozen film and television appearances, especially when both of them were/have been only active in their home countries? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"rv" in edit summaries, removing stuff en masse

Don't do this. When you say "rv", it means "revert". We revert vandalism or bad edits; you were not reverting the addition of a bad source there, you were apparently trying to remove a link from a source that went bad. External links that go bad are fixed using the procedures described at WP:EL, but the common sense issue here is that you merrily dropped the whole reference to the source just because of the link. Don't do that, that's just wrong. Especially when you can see that the citation tag has a "ref" attribute, which means something above is likely referencing it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on doing this?

Why do you feel the need to delete people from dates page? What gives you the authority to determine what is or is not "notable"? I am re-adding names of people I feel belong. They have Wikipedia articles, so they are "notable". I don't get it, I'm sorry. Why can't you leave well enough alone? Just asking. Please revert your edits. Terabthia2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terabthia2 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your answer to this user went in the wrong place. I have created a subpage for you as the talk page already existed for this user, even though the user page didn't.Deb (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you explain your criteria for determining if an individual with an article is sufficiently globally notable? The long-term consensus has been that they have an article that itself passes the test of notability. This has served well over the years. Whatever the method, it is not correct to to say "rv" on the entries: you are removing them, not reverting, which implies an editing test, vandalism or a malformed edit. This is somewhat insulting to those editors who clearly placed those entries there in good faith. —BillC ^talk 23:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have now found the discussion. —BillC ^talk 23:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

I love working with you [e-mail], but may I ask you, please, to refrain from making cosmetic changes which make it harder to follow the same stuff after you. I don't understand why you removed helpful line-breaks at Nazi crimes against the Polish nation. I would prefer that if you happen to have a bit of free time on your hand, you'd rather look around for new citations requested in that article 3 years ago. I know you can do this quite well. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 20:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Prentiss

Over three years ago you noted[2] how part of her article needed to be sourced. I removed that part of the article in its entirety. A Google news search comes up with nothing. Google came up with Imdb and some blogs. None of which meet WP:RS. I also edited California Split to remove mention of this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@...William -- I don't really understand your point but the only reference on the Prentiss page is IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source. What the heck does "is the complaint department really on the roof?" mean?? Quis separabit? 14:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1- I was just letting you know since you raised the issue.

2- That's my signature line. My maternal grandfather used to regularly say the complaint dept is on the roof....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

What is the reason behind the removal of numerous military engagements as non notable? For example the Battle of Pavon involved 32000 people.--Catlemur (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur: Battle of Pavón is an almost completely unsourced, seriously POV, article. I will try to improve it but its currently long, rambling, synthetic text make it, in my opinion, unreliable. Quis separabit? 23:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the articles you removed are notable, regardless of their current quality. Therefore the removal was unjustified.--Catlemur (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur -- OK, check it out now. Quis separabit? 14:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good.--Catlemur (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A BIG thank you!

It is true that you can't compare with my "impartiality and neutrality and good will and lack of bias" - but, despite you stating the bleedin' obvious I nonetheless wish to thank you for such high praise; even coming from you it means something ;) Sarah777 (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarah777: -- A chara. Good to hear from you. I didn't know you were still hanging around the place when I delved back into ancient history just so I could storm off in high dudgeon from that other article's talk page. Did you read about what happened to Sarah Connolly, descendant of James Connolly (see here)? You guys and gals across the pond need to get your act together. The mask is never supposed to fall in public. Is mise... Quis separabit? 20:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you are suggesting I'd dislike someone because of their accent??! My own Ma was Italian and she doesn't sound like she's from either Oxford or Ballyfermot. And no...she didn't even run a chippers. Gimme a break..eh? Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarah777: no, just asking if you had heard about the outrage. Wish I understood the Hiberno-Cockney. "And no...she didn't even run a chippers" -- I assume that means something about a fish & chips shop but I am stuck in NY and I don't entirely get it. The BBC only gives up crap like Downton Abbey over here. LOL. BTW: Your Ma being Italian, have you ever heard of Anna Hassan (maiden name Fusco)? Yours, Quis separabit? 23:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've heard of her now! But not before you mentioned her. Looks like she was a good teacher. I noticed she wasn't tagged for IrlProj - she is now. Any more you come across like that feel free to tag them - my current mission is scouring Wiki to include relevant articles in the IrlProj. Ciao. Sarah777 (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps The Italian chipper is a long-standing thing in Ireland; they came after the war from a handful of villages and their grand-kids are still serving greasy chip, onion rolls and batter burgers with no more of an accent than I have! Sarah777 (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Baker

Even though Miss Baker renounced her American citizenship and became a citizen of France, I am not sure that removing her from Category:20th-century American singers is entirely correct. She was born and grew up in the US, had her first successes in the US and remained an American citizen for the first 31 years of her life (all of which took place within the 20th Century). Would welcome discussion on the Category either here or at the article's talk page. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Pavle Stanimirovic entry Thank you for your attention to the entry I wrote on Pavle Stanimirovic. I want to ask you about how to improve it. You deleted several parts, mostly for being insufficiently sourced. I am new to this and it was useful to have examples of what works and what doesn't. However, one section that went was about the education of this man. The information is crucial for the entry to be a valuable biography. The subject grew up to be a criminal authority and master jewel thief. He is the rare criminal an ex-con who also went to Swiss boarding school, learned a half-dozen languages and played tennis at a high level... at the same time, he became an early member of the notorious 'Pink Panthers', a European burglary crew well-known for their sophistication. So the subject's education is very important to the entry. Of course, the sourcing was the real issue.Frankly, I didn't know how to cite this. Since writing the entry, the subject has appeared on a radio show and briefly described his background, so I can add that reference, but the truth is that I am a journalist and know about him because I am writing a profile on the man. I have interviewed him on the phone (he lives in Miami and I am in New York) several times, interviewed his mother once, and had email correspondence with a former classmate of his to verify this information. But my work is not published yet. As a result, I did not know how to cite it. I also was concerned about saying that I know these things through personal communication because it might appear that I am writing an entry for a friend. We have similar backgrounds in one sense. I have never met this man in person and value the integrity of the Wikipedia process for personal reasons I can explain if you are curious. Can you help me restore the education segment, cite it properly, and avoid the appearance of impropriety? If you're busy or uninterested, don't even reply. I won't make a fuss. If you have the inclination, I have one other question. A sentence describing the role that the subject played in Perez Hilton's reporting of the Kim Kardashian robbery in Paris was excised. The reason was given was 'unreliable BLP source'. I don't understand. Thanks again. I like doing this and think I have much to offer Wikipedia, so your help will matter for more than this one article. DanielGenis (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Daniel Genis[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Brian Connolly into List of people who adopted matrilineal surnames. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Valley of Fear

Hi, I saw that you added an "unsourced" tag to the section "Television" of The Valley of Fear. Can I ask you what source do you think the section need? A source to prove these three shows exist (even though each shows has a link to its Wikipedia page), or a source to prove the cited episodes adapt this specific novel? Also, why is the tag in the "Television" section only and not, for example, in the "Film" section? Newblackwhite (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit, now it is clear that the only tv series in that section that needs a source is Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century (I guess it's for the line "Despite the opening credits saying the episode is inspired by The Valley of Fear, there are actually no connection between the two."). The question is, do we need a source for the fact that the opening credit claim inspiration, or for the fact that they are unrelated? If it's the former, then a simple screenshot like this would be enough. If it's the latter, then things get trickier because the show is pretty obscure and I don't think there are episode reviews that would be considered reliable sources. There is TvTropes ("The opening titles state that the episode is based on The Valley of Fear. However, there is no tangible connection, aside from Holmes, Watson, and Moriarty being involved in both"), Literature Wikia (""The Crime Machine" is credited as having been inspired by The Valley of Fear. The episode, which first aired on September 25, 1999, in the United Kingdom, bears little resemblance to the story") and a fansite ("The title card claims it was inspired by ‘The Valley of Fear’ and perhaps, if you spent some time with a thesaurus, you could find some similarities beyond ‘there is a criminal gang in both stories’ but by far the biggest difference between the two tales is that this one is awful"), but all of them would be considered unreliable sources by Wikipedia standards. The point is, the episode itself show that its plot has nothing to do with the plot of the Valley of Fear (other episodes of the show are either modernized and simplified adaptions or at least have a thing or two in common). So, what should we do? Should we remove the line saying that the episode has a different plot (at the risk of confusing readers who will think otherwise) or should we leave it intact by assuming the episode itself is a source and thus we are not doing an original research? Because otherwise, the citation needed tag could remain there forever. Newblackwhite (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Peirce

Peirce changed her name long ago. The infobox records her birth name. Wikipedia does not "deadname" people in BLPs. You state in your hidden comment "legal name" - but you have no reference for that and you have no idea what the legal status of her name is. Peirce also practices law at Birnberg Peirce & Partners under the name "Gareth Peirce" - not "Jean Peirce", not "Jean Gareth Peirce". That's because that is her name! That she changed her name, and specifically abandoned the name "Jean" which you have now incorrectly added twice, is noted in several references appended to the article. Keri (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tillerson

Rms125a, why are we writing an encyclopedia article in present tense? The article will outlive the current political context regardless of what happens. Sca (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no the article will be rewritten (numerous times I suspect) before Trump is sworn in. Then, if Tillerson IS the nominee and IS confirmed as SOS by US Senate we can fix the tense. Shouldn't be much of an issue. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But don't you see that "is believed to be the front-runner" could become erroneous anytime – tonight, tomorrow, whenever – whereas "in December 2016 ... was believed to be" will always be true, though perhaps not relevant at some point in the future. Sca (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca -- Honestly, I am not sure. It's a little like splitting hairs. But if you really feel that strongly about it then go for it. Quis separabit? 01:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sca (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the expected happened. Glad to see it's in past tense. Cheers. Sca (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Hi i respect your reversion of my edits but i just wanted to know what mistake did i committed in reviewing those changes on March 27.The article was very short but the sportsperson Dorotea Sutara's birth date was sourced from Badminton World Federation's website.Was this revert done because of Notability Concerns? .Thanks.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 14:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Param Mudgal -- Hi. I don't know if I understand your point about her birth date. I never changed her birth date or questioned its accuracy (see diff) see what you mean about the birthdate in this diff. No, that was not an issue. I am sure the Badminton World Federation's website is reliable. No, I believe she does not qualify, under the more stringent criteria for inclusion in the births and deaths listings by day of the year, likely because it may just be too soon. Once she qualifies as an athlete I will be happy to restore her name. Quis separabit? 14:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i Understand.Thank you for your clarification and help.Cheers.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 18:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New section

I need to let you know that what you did here , removing the entire lead, putting it under "Career" and tagging it as unsourced, in violation of WP:LEDE, does not help Wikipedia whatsoever. This is not the only article where you have done this, as evidenced by your recent edits to Jasenovac concentration camp. As another user noted, you're simply splitting a referenced paragraph and fact-tagging its portions . This serves no purpose at all and actually makes the article worse. Please refrain from doing this in the future. 23 editor (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@23 editor -- sorry -- you know I am a serious editor. I just thought the ledes were too long and that was my way of fixing them. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not without community-wide consensus. 23 editor (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudanese Civil War

The South Sudanese Civil War is "non-notable"? "Up to 300,000 people are estimated to have been killed in the war" and "About 3 million people have been displaced in a country of 12 million, with about 2 million internally displaced and about 1 million having fled to neighboring countries." —howcheng {chat} 04:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Howcheng -- you're correct. Thanks for alerting me. I accidentally deleted the wrong entry. Thanks so much. Quis separabit? 04:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Days of the year-articles: guidelines for additions in births- and deaths sections

Hello Robert, Thank you for all thank you's! I noticed you undid this [3] regarding date article March 28. I see your point. As you may have noticed I've started to add quite a few links to the births- and deaths sections of the date articles. I noticed a lot were missing compared to the year articles (f.i. 384). To that end I created a little program to check missing links and generate content. The links are added manually. As a consequence I also corrected a lot of errors (wrong dates etc.). So far I checked the years 500 BC - 1075 AD. I'm getting to the point that not all persons listed in the births- and deaths sections of a year article should be added to the corresponding date article. Do guidelines exist when to add a person? If so, where can I find them? Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)|[reply]

@Mill 1: I should be thanking you for your work. Most of your edits are fine. I really haven't touched them (with one or two exceptions) as they are plainly classically notable. If you are not sure whether someone qualifies, go with your best judgement. Trust me, there will likely be someone who, if he or she disagrees, will so indicate. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Mill 1 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert, I can see why you undid some of my revisions this weekend, except for this one. I added her again to the day of the year page. She's was a queen for crying out loud! :) Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: List of mass executions and massacres in Yugoslavia during World War II:

I did some quick research on the matter. While the villages in the hinterland (it's Zabiokovlje - note the typo) are c. 20 km away from Makarska and separated from it by Biokovo mountain range (so geographically they are not really close), the massacres in question were evidently part of the same military campaign and all happened in a matter of days of weeks (could not extract the actual dates, but August-September is definitely right).

Some sources cover the hinterland massacres and Makarska massacre separately, while some cover them as a single event (e.g. sh:Pokolj u Makarskoj 1942.). Anyway, 900 + 141 appears like double counting to me. The Croatian Wikipedia seems to be confused over the matter too (hr:Pokolj u Zabiokovlju 29. kolovoza 1942.). I'd be in favor of merging the entries for the two. Still, the sources need to be checked to to make sure that the 900 figure indeed does subsume the Zabiokovlje events. GregorB (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Maybe it's best not to merge the entries before it's fully certain these two refer to the same event. Leave it as it is for the time being? GregorB (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No updates really, status quo through and through... :-) GregorB (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions: ad-hoc, whim, or what?

Please reference my rant at User_talk:Film915#What is "not very consequential people"? Why "reduce eurocentrism"?

I see so much of what could easily be called 'corrosion' at Wikipedia that a long series of changes seemingly reflecting only the whim of individual editors just freaks me out. Whether it is preferring "East Sea" over "Sea of Japan", "Taiwan" over "ROC", or preferring 20th century people over 19th century, or non-Europeans over Europeans, it all appears the same - the imposition of arbitrary personal whims or goals on Wikipedia articles.

When I then see two different people of equal certainty batting people in and out of lists with equally enlightening "insufficiently universally notable entries" and "not very consequential people" it sure looks like naught but corrosion to me. I've previously tried to encapsulate this as:

Is there yet a general realization that Wikipedia is a proud shining obelisk inscribed with knowledge in all the scripts of the world, but made of chalk and drenched in a corrosive atmosphere of acid rain?

This is a long-term worry for me - see User_talk:Shenme#Evolution where a since-banned self-confident user had no problem justifying that every biological article needed recasting with the main point of the page being "evolution!!1!1" (such as retitling sections and forcing them as the first or second section of numerous articles).

What guidelines are you using for 'insufficient'? What _are_ the guidelines for being 'consequential'? 'Global'? 'Universal'? Huh? What process is being followed here? Please read my rant and Film915's response, where I see what to the worried me appear to be ad-hoc reasonings, but might be justifiable to others. Shenme (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I understand that I'm freaking out, but this shaking the box labelled May 22 to see what falls out isn't the only thing I observe. Crap like genre warriors should concern everybody *because* it is just one special type of self-confident mal-behaviour, and there are squillions more 'types' out there! "Symphonic power metal" vs "melodic metalcore" vs "heavy metal" is something to war over for some people? And been going on for years? (yes!) Yikes!!! Shenme (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shenme -- I have already replied and explained my position at @Film915's talk page, which is where you initiated the conversation, and where we should keep it for consistency's sake Quis separabit?

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas [e-mail]!!
	Hi [e-mail], I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 ^Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly - best of the season to you as well, and happy new year! And happy editing; I always enjoy it when I cross paths with you in my rambles 'round these parts. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^Che dicono a Signa?_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A barnstar for you!

Thank you. It was an unexpected but very much appreciated surprise. May I take this moment to wish you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and a New Year full of blessings. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for all your contributions here! :), Have a great Crimbo & New Year! :) –Davey2010 ^Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 10:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Robert! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jolie Gabor

I reverted your reversion because birth and death dates for non-notable relatives are wholly irrelevant to the article and basically just amount to unimportant trivia. If you'd like to discuss on the article talk page, I'm up for that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Hello [e-mail]: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 21:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy Holidays

	The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12 BLPs 11 RFAs 10 New Users 9 Barn Stars 8 Admins Blocking 7 Socks Socking 6 Clerks Clerking 5. Check Users Checking 4 Over Sighters Hiding 3 GAs 2. Did You Knows and an ARB in a pear tree. -May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598

For you!

For your kindness and thanks when newcomers are so quick to criticize

I don't even know how to place this on a barnstar-- please do so for yourself. Your thanks after my edits (while Wikipedia is noticeably developing into a hostile environment like Commons) have sustained me in nearly 50% of my work here since 1 1/2 years in a coma in the ICU and then a nursing home while I learn how to stand, walk, and and use basic muscles. Thanks for your kindness! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tuskegee Airmen

Please revert your changes to the existing date format in the article, which is d/m/y. There is even a tag for this at the top of the edit page which has been there since 2012. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) However, this is an American article and the correct format is m/d/y. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlpearc: Yeah, that's what I thought. Now I have reverted back to d/m/y. Please advise. Quis separabit? 16:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DMY is correct in that article, because it's a US military-related topic. Per WP:DATETIES,

"In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military, including U.S. military biographical articles, use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage."

It's fine if you disagree with the application here, but such a change needs to be discussed first, as the article has used DMY for a long time. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, of course, yes military article's are d/m/y/ :P - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) - BilCat (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A conversation is happening;

Here. FYI, since you were involved in the original AfD discussion. Happy New year (belatedly) Rms. O Fortuna!^...Imperatrix mundi. 16:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silence (2016 film)

With all respect, I'm sure you must be aware that film plots are 400 to 700 words. It was 658. Your "tweaking" took it to 842. Please take your concerns to the talk page and please respect WP:FILMPLOT. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estelle Harris

Hello, I see that you have reverted my edits on the page concerning the actress Miss Estelle Harris. You say that my additions of "Miss" to her name were "unnecessary titles". How absolutely disrespectful!! This modern-day fashion of using only a person's surname in an article or biography about them is shamefully disrespectful to the person concerned. My adding the title "Miss" was simply to give a measure of respect to the description of the lady and her extensive career. How can you possibly think that that is "unnecessary"? It offends me deeply whenever I see or hear an article or report about someone without their title being used, and I am sure that it must certainly offend the person being spoken or written about too. It gives the article or report a very disrespectful tone, and that is the way that the page reads as it now is. I hope that you will now understand my reasons for the edit and perhaps rethink your reversion. Thanking you, Informatus (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Informatus -- Estelle Harris is not a Miss, and calling her that does not add any respect, since she is a married woman and Harris is her married name. It is as simple as that. Quis separabit? 21:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is married, but the term Miss is often used for older or matured ladies as a respectful term whether or not they are married. You could also use her married title, Mrs, if you prefer. Either one is preferable to using no title at all and either title would add a tone of respect to the page. As it is the page is still disrespectful in its tone.Informatus (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Informatus: How is the page disrespectful in its tone? It is identical to most actress-related pages. Quis separabit? 18:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia's Manual of Style dictates that we don't use honorifics like that; it is not "shamefully disrepectful" but simply the way people write and speak in the 21st century (some of us have been doing it for much longer than that). --Orange Mike | Talk 00:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ash

This fellow was a famous jazz musician/bandleader in the 1920s-1930s. He was considered "the cat's meow" from coast to coast. I first encountered his name in connection with Gosden and Correll of Amos 'n' Andy fame; before they made it big with that radio program, they were hoping to sell some of their work to him. Ash was responsible for getting Ruth Etting into the right places to be heard; he did the same for a lot of others who became stars.

Have seen photos of him; he was not a matinee idol, but had a shock of long red hair like many of the maestros did. Women went wild over him-there were Paul Ash dolls, scarves and the like which the ladies bought readily. Women stopped at almost nothing to attend his performances. Some were so taken by him, he had been accosted (and even shot at) by jealous husbands. But as you can see, the article is only a stub. It will need to be more than that before I add him into the "mix" at Ruth Etting. As it is right now, it would be hand to understand what Paul Ash discovering her at Marigold Gardens meant to Etting's career. Was just able to begin gathering information about him last night. We hope (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope -- OK. So? Carry on. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still gathering Ash news stories and need to get them clipped. Trying to work three way with it-Ruth Etting, Martin Snyder and now Ash. ;) We hope (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And a barnstar for you too!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For continually cheering me up with messages of thanks and your ongoing vigilance on every day of the year.  GILO   A&E⇑  22:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women's march edits

Hi, I saw you edited the 2017 Women's March, and reverted as Point of View: "and especially at his statements and positions regarded as anti-women or in other ways reprehensible." This phrasing was in earlier versions of the article, and has undergone extensive editing. It has been added and reverted several times. I am moving it to Talk for discussion. Thanks for contributing.Bjhillis (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2017 Women's March locations

I disagree with the removal of sourced content because attendance figures are not listed for some entries. Please allow users time to expand the article, rather than removing sourced entries from the article. Expansion takes time, whereas removing content takes seconds. It's unclear why you think such removals improve the article. Thanks for your consideration. North America^1000 06:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your nice reply on my talk page regarding the list article. North America^1000 08:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Grant

As a contributor to Lee Grant an RFC has been started at Talk:Lee Grant#RfC about Lee Grant's date of birth to resolve the dispute over how to present Grant's age. I am leaving you notification so that you have an opportunity to comment. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 29 January

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

• On the Stutthof concentration camp page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Donaghey

Hi Thanks for your edits on the article. I don't think it's mistranscribed as being Donaghey. I know Find a Grave isn't a reliable source, but if you look at the family headstone, it lists Gerald and his parents' surname as being spelled 'Donaghey'. In the Bloody Sunday in Derry book, his surname is spelled that way too. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficiently notable?

Hi, I'm just wondering why you think Lee Smolin, one of the world's leading theoretical physicists, is not sufficiently notable to have an entry on 6 June for his birthday in 1955? His DoB is sourced at his article. If you're in agreement I'll put the entry back. Thanks. 141.6.11.22 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Brown

The truth is not "vandalism." This is how and why she was hired at UCB. She was Judith Butler's trailing spouse/partner. It's not illegal. It happens all the time. But it it is what it is and it's relevant in an article on her career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.145.58 (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@212.7.145.58:, was a reliable source provided in support of this career detail? In my experience, yes, partners being offered positions is not uncommon as a part of package to attract high quality academic talent, but it is rarely a detail that is documented in published sources. Bottom line, truth may or may not be vandalism, repending on how it is introduced; even when not vandalism, truth that is not sourced is not encyclopedic at this venue. Cheers, Le Prof [User:Leprof_7272] 73.210.155.96 (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism" isn't really the right word

I have the biography of Mohammad Akram Nadwi on my watchlist, and note that you reverted a recent edit, calling it "vandalism". I have no problem with the reversion per se, as the material added was unsourced. But by my reading we have a new user who has gone to the trouble of creating an account (as User:Imtiyaz1993) and who tries to contribute local knowledge. I think Wikipedia should encourage and foster such people, and show them how to work within our rules, not knock them back by accusing them of deliberate damage. Wikipedia:Vandalism defines it as malicious editing; "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Please, when you continue your valuable work of patrolling recent changes, consider how you can bring new users into the community (e.g. with a message on their talkpage, or a mention of Wikipedia:Teahouse in the edit summary), rather than pushing them away. Thank you. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbon Caryatid --- thanks for your words of wisdom. I guess, seeing so much genuinely disruptive editing daily, that good-faith but faulty editing get can lumped with the rest. I will try to be more discerning. Quis separabit? 15:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this in the spirit in which it was meant. It must be dispiriting to see so much rubbish. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered that there are lots of welcome templates (I had only known of a couple), including one for a new user who has added unsourced material. And of course templates for vandalism. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Regarding your apology at WP:ANI, I wanted to let you know that it was my decision to lend my thoughts to the incident report, so you didn't do anything wrong. DarkKnight2149 04:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Rms125a, thanks for thanking me! I have a question on Speaker Ryan's photo... which version is better... version 1 or version 2? I feel as though version 1 is too close and small, but that's just my opinion! Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 05:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice much difference but my eyesight isn't the greatest. Just watchlist the page. If anyone changes the images or the sizes or the captions you can see whether or not such changes are for the better or not, although, of course, such things are largely subjective. Yours. Good Night (late here in NYC). Quis separabit? 06:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeyamohan

You are doing two things on the page of Tamil Indian writer Jeyamohan. You are trying to remove red links which I understand and accept. But you are also trying to dictate what is and isn't his notable work, and what his occupation is. This is what I'm pointing out on and ask you re refer Leo Tolstoy's page. It has 4-5 occupations an4-5 notable works. Why isn't a listing allowed for an equally famous Indian writer? Just because a Wikipedia article doesn't exist, doesn't make it a non-notable work.

Also Mr Jeyamohan is the biggest literary author on the Tamil language (spoken by 70 million people), and beyond the writing he has worked with most well known Tamil films in Screenwriting. If I complain about your unnecessary removal of content, you're calling it agitprop. How fair is that? Madhusam (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Madhusam -- We agree on no redlinks in infoboxes, that's a step in the right direction. By removing redlinked and nonlinked entries, which you indicate above that you understand, i am NOT "trying to dictate what is and isn't his notable work". That is why there is an article and not just an infobox.
As far as what "his occupation is, you included a list of occupations, some of which overlap or are redundant ("Novelist, Short story writer, Literary Critic, Essayist, Film Screenwriter, Dialogue writer"). That is why we have categories (i.e. [[:Category:]]).
I regard as agitprop and bad faith your edit summary accusing me of a bias in how I edit European and Indian writers; I didn't use the term "agitprop" to refer to a valid "complain[t] about ... unnecessary removal of content."
Where possible you should simply try to REWORD whatever is objectionable and to gain consensus. Quis separabit? 15:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References to Lucille Ball's sister

Please see: References. X4n6 (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reince Priebus

Why was my recent edit disruptive? It was appropriately sourced and based on his public image.--2604:2000:C54E:9F00:1064:29AE:DE53:11D6 (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is blatantly POV and recentist partisan political commentary that does not belong on an encyclopaedia. Quis separabit? 04:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have trouble understanding what POV editing is. It would be biased to say, "Priebus is a micromanager as Chief of Staff." It is not bias to say, "[r]ecently, Priebus has drawn controversy for his alleged micromanagement and lack of results as Chief of Staff," and then source that comment to two respected media outlets. Rather, it is a statement of current public perception, without taking a side either way. One line does not qualify as recentism, either. Again, I am more than happy to help you learn about the U.S. political system, if you indeed want to learn.2604:2000:C54E:9F00:1064:29AE:DE53:11D6 (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all of your work on the "on this day" articles. ;) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish as an ethnic descriptor

"Jewish" is a broad term referring to any member of the Jewish Ethnoreligious group. The term Jewish can refer to a person who is ethnically Jewish without following the Jewish religion, and also to people who convert to Judaism without being a member of the ethnicity. To draw a parallel: The Navajo have their own traditional religion. However, a Navajo who does not follow their traditional religion is still a member of a distinct ethnic group. Furthermore, the articles do not simply follow national extraction, they follow ethnic extraction. "African" is certainly not a nationality any more than "European" is, but African-American a valid descriptor because it refers to a distinct ethnic group. Rest assured I know what I am doing in regards to Jewish as a descriptor, seeing as I am ethnically Jewish and I've been learning about this for my entire life. ;) Asarelah (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Asarelah -- I know you are a seasoned editor. When I see an edit you made pop up on my watchlist I usually don't even bother to check unless there's something else of interest. However, I have rarely, if ever, seen the "Jewish" descriptor on the DOY (Days of the Year, birthday, etc.) pages as a nationality. Perhaps occasionally with regards to the rabbinate, but even then rarely as it would be superfluous. Quis separabit? 19:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're okay with me adding "Jewish" in as an ethnic descriptor? Again, its not an "nationality". Nationality refers to the nation that one is a citizen of. In the example of African-Americans, "American" is the nationality and "African-American" is the ethnicity. Asarelah (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historian butting in - NO - ethnicity and nationality are the same thing - they are not synonymous with "citizenship." A Jew may be a practicing Christian, and still be a Jew, by nationality/ethnicity (never mind that orthodox practicing Jewish people would not consider them so.). A "nation-state" is a state that is comprised of a high degree of the same people/nation/ethnicity - as such, Czech Republic is a nation-state. The U.S.A. is most certainly not. 104.169.18.61 (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's not a violation of MOS, I guess, although there may be individual instances in the future in which I disagree with it. Quis separabit? 00:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Brown

Wasnt trying to be snippy on the Edit page, but she had dual citizenry- which is why I used the artice I used for her death reference.

From the article itself-

"In the 70s Chelsea moved to Sydney and became an Australian citizen. She had a role in Number 96 and then E Street where she met her husband Vic Rooney. Chelsea was also a popular regular on Graham Kennedy’s Blankety Blanks." [1]

Regards.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. [1]

Removal of birth entries from date pages

Why are you removing people from date pages on the basis of them not being notable? If they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page then they are notable enough to be on the date page. Asarelah (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Asarelah -- @Deb's project has been going on for a long time. You just noticed? (See here). Quis separabit? 03:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Spicer and en dash

In your revision of 21:57, 17 April 2017 of Sean Spicer, you made three edits involving en dashes that don't comply with standard usage or an element of MOS:DASH, "Do not mix en dashes with prepositions like between and from.":

• "From 2003 to 2005" changed to "From 2003-05" (using a hyphen instead of an en dash where the word "to" is required)
• "during 2006–09" changed to "from 2006–09" (I had earlier changed "from" to "during" to avoid the prohibition on using en dash with "from")
• "From 2009 to 2011" changed to "From 2009-2011 (using a hyphen instead of an en dash where the word "to" is required)

An en dash is used to indicate a range, such as a range of of dates, time, amount, or letters of the alphabet. But it is avoided when one expects the word "to" or "and" because of a preceding "from" or "between". In reading "from 2006–09", one reads the "from" and expects "to" to follow. In reading "during 2006–09", the word "during" doesn't create an expectation of another word, so it's OK to use the en dash there.

Cheers, Anomalocaris (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DOTY question

Most birth/death entries for saints have very generic descriptors and avoid mentioning sainthood (see today's Hilary of Galeata, Christian monk). Any idea why that is? I guess it's a posthumous thing but it's also generally the reason they're worth including. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Bob Drewel. Thank you. SounderBruce 21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @SounderBruce -- this was the source I used. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's behind a paywall and needs to be properly cited in the article in order to be valid. SounderBruce 22:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFL infobox

Hi. I noticed you have been removing the "careerhighlights" parameter from Template:Infobox AFL biography. I just wanted to check the reason for that? It is still in use and there has been no discussion I am aware of to discontinue this parameter. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jevansen : OK, but it appears to be rarely if ever used, and in the cases of old-timers and/or deceased players I thought it extraneous. But I'll leave them from now on. Thanks. Quis separabit? 13:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Certainly is a parameter used more for current day players but there's no reason they can't be added to the older blokes, it's just that their articles are slower to progress past stubs. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Wiseau birthdate

I'm confused by this detail. Do I understand that you are using an OTRS ticket, presumably ticket #2016121910022522, as an objection by the subject to inclusion of the birthdate at all? Or just that it's the subject disputing the accuracy of certain birthdates while not providing correct one to include? Or providing a correct one but not providing a reliable source for it? DMacks (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks -- What I am saying is that, if you check the Wiseau edit history, going back a while, you will see that his full name (not the same as birth name which I suspect is different but not available), date and place of birth, etc. based on his naturalization application at ancestry.com, have all been deleted or scrubbed, based upon an apparent complaint filed by subject with OTRS. I have never seen the ticket. I think you need special access, anyway, to see those but that is what @Ronhjones stated in his edit summary (see [4], [5], [6]). Quis separabit? 02:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per those edits and Ronhjones's explicit statement on the article talk-page, the OTRS is only about the name, not the date. DMacks (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: OK. Thanks. Quis separabit? 11:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Kaif

Katrina Kaif was born on July 16. Why do you not accept it? Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neel.arunabh -- I do accept it but there are stricter criteria for being included in DOTY listings, yes even if the subject has a Wikipedia article. This is so the lists can be trimmed and maintained before they become unmanageable. See here Yours truly. Quis separabit? 02:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for all the "public thanks" you're sending me. I'm working my way through the birthdate/deathdate missing categories (and mainly getting grief for it!). Your thanks are much appreciated! —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing style

I doubt if it's intentional on your part, but I wonder if I could ask you to consider the manner of such editing by you which sometimes can make your edits very difficult to follow? If you are making minor edits that for example are simply reordering the form of existing citations, or, say, changing punctuation from i.e., Trump’s to Trump's, could you consider separating such form edits from text edits that contain more significant editorial changes? The problem is that when you make and mix a substantial number of both types of edits, that can make it very difficult to follow exactly what you've done, given the Wikipedia visual presentation of those changes. In the case of the latter textual edits, could you also break up those edits that are interspersed sometimes through many sections of an extensive article, into separate edits? I've at times spent hours working through the mass of those edits trying to figure out what you've done that has taken you perhaps only a few minutes to accomplish. Some might be entirely uncontroversial while others might demand involvement in a consensus process. I don't think this would require a significantly greater amount of time than you're already spending on these edits and it would be very helpful to other editors. Thanks so much for your assistance with this. Activist (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

"No consensus for removal of categories". If you had viewed the talk page as I recommended in my edit, you would have seen there was a discussion about removing pseudoscience in favor of pseudoscienctific psychologists. There was no discussion about the other categories, because they were INSERTED without discussion. 65.51.243.195 (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Thank You Award for u

	Thank u award
	Thanks for appreciateling my edit on Margaret Thatcher article. Thank u very much. Ominictionary (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving your talk page

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 163.4 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677 -- OK. Thanks. Quis separabit? 22:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links revisited

Please do not remove links from articles (as you did in this edit) just because they are dead links. Dead links are still useful, since someone may have access to their original content and since they can often be replaced by archived content. It is better to have a dead link than a {{cn}} tag. See WP:DEADREF: "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working." I see that you also deleted the publication date for a citation to an article in The Guardian (in the same edit). That doesn't seem proper. I checked the source and the date that you removed was correct. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof -- even if they have been tagged as "permanent dead links"? OK, if you say so. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to think of a dead link as similar to a citation to an offline source (or a source that's behind a pricey paywall). Sources don't need to be on the web. It's certainly nice if the source is accessible on the web, but it isn't mandatory, and it's certainly better to have a citation to an article that is no longer available online than to have no citation at all. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chalam

Hi! A few months ago, you added year of birth/year of death info to Chalam (see this edit). I'm looking for a reference and can't find anything. Of course, I'm limited to searches in the Latin script and one has to assume that there are better references in Telugu. If you find such a source (assuming of course that you know Telugu!), I'd appreciate it if you can add it to the article. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced DOY is a good idea (?)

Dear Rms125a. It would be nice if you could give your opinion on this discussion. I saw your name from Mill 1's talk page and it seems that you are sourced as an expert on this. Many thanks :) --Rochelimit (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for nominating Betty Harford for deletion. It is high time Wikipedia stopped having articles on every low level actor who ever appeared on the silver or small screen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1997

I'll recheck, but it appears you deleted all deaths in June and July. I can't fix it on my mobile. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just a bug in diff. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin -- so everything is OK, Arthur? Yours, Quis separabit? 02:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everything is OK. My display of your diff showed those months lost, but displays of diffs including yours were clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Rosenstein

You don't like HuffPo, but how about NBC News and The Hill (via WaPo)? I suggest you revert that last edit. There's no argument about what party he belongs to except from one particular Twitter account that is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And NPR. I can keep looking and we can WP:OVERCITE to your heart's content. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ina Vukic

Looks like you got under Ina Vukic's skin . Tisk tisk. 23 editor (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should James Gunn Have Been Included In The "Weinstein Effect" Article?

He didn't have any specific accusers, But his tweets were discovered by some people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.180.75 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Plouffe

Re: [7] (Trevor Plouffe#Minnesota Twins), if you let me know which statements in particular you think require a citation, I will do my best to find appropriate sources. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People excluded from entering the United States has been nominated for discussion

Category:People excluded from entering the United States, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GZWDer (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Noerdlinger

Your recent deletion of an entire section of this article is outrageous, as is the fact that you used an obscenity in your edit summary. Please stop with the disruptive editing. SunCrow (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SunCrow -- "BULL" is not an obscenity. Had I used the full eight-letter word for which it is an abbreviation then you might have a colorable claim to the word being an obscenity, although why you would bother is beyond me. More to the point, I removed text which violated WP:POV and WP:OR, and if the violations are restored, I will revert again and bring it to ANI. BTW: We don't refer to subjects of article by forename ("Rachel") in the body of an biographical article unless it is necessary to distinguish an individual from another person with a similar name or the same surname. Quis separabit? 01:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't look at this very carefully. I am not the editor who included Noerdlinger's first name. In fact, I fixed that problem in several places. In any event, cutting out an entire section is not the way to deal with that. If you believe that this material violates various policies, please take the issue to the talk page. Until you do, the material should stay in. Also, your behavior is infantile. SunCrow (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SunCrow -- It isn't really infantile. When one has been editing since 2005 -- which I really wouldn't be doing or be permitted to do if I were infantile -- one becomes inordinately concerned about the endless attempts at whitewashing or neutering or hagiographing biographical articles that attract attention over a wide spectrum of political, racial, religious, ethnic, and national categorizations. I update from the last stable edit I find and I apologize for incorrectly assuming you were the editor who was POVing the article of an individual considered by many to be some sort of heroine or mistreated minority (needless to say, she is neither) with rudimentary apologetics. Sometimes the innocent get caught in the crossfires. Please feel free to review the diff and see what you think. Yours, Quis separabit? 02:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Eric Forman, Michael Kelso, Steven Hyde, and others[a]

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Eric Forman, Michael Kelso, Steven Hyde, and others—have been proposed for merging with List of That '70s Show characters. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 15:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

1. Donna Pinciotti, Fez (That '70s Show), Kitty Forman, Red Forman

Anurag Kashyap (spelling) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anurag Kashyap (spelling). Since you had some involvement with the Anurag Kashyap (spelling) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pola Negri

• Pola Negri
• Languages: Polski should be near the top since she is Polish, can you fix that ?
• 69.181.23.220 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marianna Hill

Greetings. Ms Hill was born in Santa Barbara, USA, as per birth records of the State of California, accessed and recorded by the LDS. LDS birth research is a reliable source. Check the discussion near the bottom of her talk page, please. Tapered (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Donna Hylton

Thanks, though I am just trying to ensure Wikipedia remains uncensored and WP:CONSENSUS is followed. I think that Hylton's releasing of a new book (A Little Piece of Light) may have caused an uptick of activity on the page, which may cause issues as (per a book review by Susan Sheehan of the Washington Post) the book contains a fair amount of "ammending". More eyes on the article would be welcome, as always with contentious issues--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Hi Rms, here, you reverted one edit of an IP, but it left the other edit behind. This is confusing for the rest of us. Please turn on "Twinkle" under your preferences, which gives you rollback buttons that you can use to revert all the dubious edits at one go. All the best! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Your recent editing history at Alison Lundergan Grimes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rms, I'm sorry, but I agree with that removal--it's not worth warring over. We can't document every thing everyone says. BTW I remember reading this article, which makes it both more mundane and more bizarre. Take care, Drmies (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jolie Gabor

Hi [e-mail]. I wanted to let you know that I removed thefamouspeople.com as a source in Jolie Gabor. Looks like you added it a while ago [8]. It's likely they got some of the information from Wikipedia, and the website generally isn't reliable. (Discussions here and here). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FORUM / Your edits to U.S. Representative Greg Gianforte

Come on Rms125a, "why not add Antifa which threatens genuine journalists? Democratic propaganda worthy of the SPLC" is a ridiculous claim to make, in an edit summary or elsewhere. You're practically inviting someone to slap a DS warning for American Politics on your page and seeking redress for those POV comments. And the summary was wrong in other ways as well--you weren't removing categories, as I initially thought, but "See also" links. If the subject had been categorized as "journalist killer" or something like that I'd have been with you, but these are related articles, and if a dude gets bodyslammed as a journalist, then Safety of journalists is a reasonable topic to link to. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a, Notwithstanding the criminal trial, Rep. Gianforte reached a civil settlement with the victim of his assault that included a donation to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Please, before you revert this again, visit Talk:Greg Gianforte and explain your edit to revert this "see also" link to Committee to Protect Journalists. The Committee to Protect Journalists is specifically mentioned in the article and should be restored as per WP:NAVLIST and MOS:SEEALSO in the Manual of Style which states that "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I have restored this "see also" section link to the Committee to Protect Journalists to the article. Could we please discuss this there before you revert it again? Thank you, Critical Chris

Discretionary sanctions for biographical articles

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | talk 17:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, [e-mail]. 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]

Recent ANI discussion

Hello [e-mail],

The ANI conversation seems to have come to an end. That conversation revealed some deeply troubling behavior on your part. You seem to have a serious problem complying with BLP policy, and you seem especially inclined to commit BLP violations with regards to African-Americans, where you like to shoehorn negative information about their relatives into those articles. Another example of that right here on this talk page is Rachel Noerdlinger, where you wrote "Sometimes the innocent get caught up in the crossfire". Consider this a warning. The next time you commit a BLP violation, you will be blocked for a very long time. So, correct your behavior now. Cullen^328 Let's discuss it 02:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any interest in the article in question (about the NFL player), but isn't it normal to discuss "notable" incidents regarding the "non-notable" sibling or parent of a notable person in the article for the notable person? How is this a "BLP violation"? Jrheller1 (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not normal--not normal at all. And if such things are added (I speak in general) it's worthwhile looking at what is being added and to what kinds of articles. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is very common to include interesting facts about the parents or siblings of a professional athlete in the article for the professional athlete. For example, the article for NBA player Isiah Thomas briefly mentions that his father was a WWII veteran wounded in the battle of Saipan. The article for NFL quarterback Steve Young states that both of his brothers played quarterback for BYU. Are you saying these things should not be included in the articles? Jrheller1 (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is one thing to briefly mention something; it is another to include multiple paragraphs on the crimes committed by someone else using sources that don't even mention the subject of the article where the subject had minimal involvement in it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose a professional athlete had a sister who faked her own kidnapping and this faked kidnapping and consequences of it were in the news. Should this be mentioned in the professional athlete's article? Personally, I wouldn't really care if it were in the article or not. But I would consider someone adding the story to the article a "good faith edit" rather than a "BLP violation". Jrheller1 (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jrheller. I don't see a problem with the general case if the sourcing is good enough. I've edited Tucker Carlson which dedicates a section to an unflattering controversy about his non-notable brother, and the sources are marginal. Should that be removed? D.Creish (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that trivial incident belongs in that article, D.Creish, but the proper place to discuss that is Talk:Tucker Carlson. Cullen^328 Let's discuss it 22:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Albanian Righteous Among the Nations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Albanian Righteous Among the Nations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Albanian Righteous Among the Nations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Catrìona (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Miles birth name

Hi from Greece, I have read the debate about S. Miles real name that took place about a year ago. Are you still interested in this? I would be more than happy to share my findings on this issue with you. Best wishes. 46.103.31.40 (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zsa Zsa

Hi, please check here the situ Talk:Zsa_Zsa_Gabor#Edit_request_8...I don't know if the IP will answer,but the concern seems fair..by or for?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello R, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 19:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi [e-mail], I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 ^Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xmas

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

[e-mail],
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hey

How are you doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:D90:C8E0:CAB:FA24:9CFE:E77B (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

Rms, it would be helpful if you would not remove the spaces separating citation template parameters ... I put them there intentionally because it is very hard for me to read, edit, and keep updated the citations without the space. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Call me Robert. OK, sorry. Very old, bad habit. Trying to break it. Sorry. Yours. [e-mail] 15:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Robert ! I have old eyes :) And thanks for the good copyedits-- there is a lot to keep up with! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your presence is requested.

Please see Talk:Suncoast Community High School.

Sorry if this is over the top. I don't know if simply tagging you would notify you. BladeRikWr (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you egging me on to go to dispute resolution?

We can fix this ourselves. I explained what the issues are, now you just have to fix them. Do you have something against me and are opposed to working with me, or what? Notrium (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Notrium :: I find you impossible to work with. DO NOT violate 3RR and do not leave me any more messages; this is becoming harassment. I am going off Wikipedia now and am not sure when I will return. Seek assistance at DR at ANI. [e-mail] 17:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Sujú

Hi! Thank you for helping out in the Tamara Sujú article. I was wondering which part of the MOS advises against skeleton infoboxes, so I'll watch out for future articles. Many thanks in advance! --Jamez42 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Josip Pečarić

I have a distinct feeling that the editor known as Notrium has been here before. Any thoughts? GregorB (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMS: Thanks for your 'thanks' just now. Hope I've judged the situation correctly. (see here) I've tried to be as fair to both sides as I could. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes -- Yeah the Serbian genocide during World War II strikes some empathetic people hard. It was scarily mideval right in the middle of the 20th-century, and the ratlines and the Peróns, et alia. I try to avoid the topic but I also watchlist certain pages which may attract negative activity. So, maybe we will run across each other again. Yours, [e-mail] 23:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. GregorB (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"you're going to get yourself banned from editing if you continue to edit recklessly and/or violate MOS and NPOV and 3RR"

Could you give an example of when I violated some of those guidelines? Notrium (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Henry Marriott

Thanks for the message, I saw "ip moved page" and jumped too quickly on that. I don't see any issues with the redirect to Alice. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had only just noticed this article, when it was linked to the Alice Mariott page. I had intended to expand the James Henry Marriott article shortly. I am sad to see that it has become a redirect. As you will have noticed, I had just begun to work on it by adding an image and commonscat etc. I have now userfied an earlier version of the James Henry Marriott article, and I guess I shall have to undo the redirect when I have completed the expansion. Please my I suggest that you discuss potential redirects on the article's talk page when there is evidence of very recent editing? Storye book (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Niclas Fronda for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Niclas Fronda is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niclas Fronda until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wgolf (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth-wave feminism

What's up with this edit? That comment you added about Wendy Davis was inappropriate at best. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third request

Rms125a, this will be now my third request that you stop altering citation formatting in this manner. I fill citation templates in this way so that I can read the text and edit around it; I find it impossible to sort out a wall of text and code when the spaces are removed. There is no technical reason for this removal; I ask again that you please stop doing this. It is frustrating to have to revert your work over what may seem to be a trivial matter to you or others, but these changes make my article work harder, and when you do this, I have to spend a lot of time trying to sort out your good and helpful edits from the needless removal of spaces. Thanks for understanding, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously

Rms, tell me you were making a poorly-considered joke that fell flat before it even took off in this edit. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies :: Can't lie and say it was a joke, nothing to joke about when people have been murdered -- but I don't claim to know all the facts, which are still being investigated. I was merely hypothesizing. I am not denying the hatred that caused the horrific shootings in NZ but I think, given the political realpolitik, that jumping to conclusions, especially with so much spilled blood, is a really bad idea and poor journalism. Have they even named the perps yet? The incident occurred today (NZ time) and there is no need to jump to politically convenient conclusions, which may not be entirely accurate. Look at the Nick Sandmann on The Mall disastrous snafu when the media jumped to conclusions. And this, given the spilled blood, is infinitely more serious. [e-mail] 16:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He had been named and arrested, and his accomplices too. The livestreaming had taken place. The "manifesto" had been found. I don't know where on earth you get the idea that "far-right extremism" is somehow a "politically convenient conclusion"--that sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me, just like that idea that there are "false flag" operations. Are you SERIOUSLY pondering the thought that, I don't know, Antifa, or Kenyan Obama, or AOC are getting a white dude with a machine gun to kill a few dozen people so they can make the alt-right look bad? In what world does that happen? And what does this have to do with the parents of an entitled kid seeking over $500 million in damages cause their boy got his face in the news? Even if something there was misreported or misinterpreted, that's not "false flag". I'm all about good faith, and I've known you for quite a while, but I am wondering if we live in the same world. And yes, suggesting "false flag" IS joking around, because it trivializes the causes and the effects. Wake up: there is no false flag. There are no chem trails. Etc. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies
A)*In the manifesto he [TARRANT] describes himself as previously a "[[communist]]", an "[[anarchist]]", a "[[libertarian]]", but then turned to "racist", and "[[Ecofascism|eco-fascist]]" concerned with [[global warming]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.itv.com/news/2019-03-15/new-zealand-suspect-says-he-is-racist-eco-fascist-who-is-mostly-introverted/|title=New Zealand suspect Brenton Tarrant ‘says he is racist eco-fascist who is mostly introverted’|website=ITV News|language=en|access-date=15 March 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/what-the-christchurch-attackers-manifesto-tells-us.html|title=What the Christchurch Attacker’s Manifesto Tells Us|last=Weissmann|first=Jordan|date=15 March 2019|website=Slate Magazine|language=en|access-date=15 March 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Bolt |first1=Andrew |title=Mosque Shooting In New Zealand. Man Dead |url=https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/mosque-shooting-in-new-zealand-many-dead/news-story/ceac4d0c5f92a32d2c62754c74d4ca30 |website=Herald Sun |accessdate=15 March 2019}}</ref>
B)* ''"He had been named and arrested, and his accomplices too."'' -- UMMM, what "accomplices"??
C)* ''And what does this have to do with the parents of an entitled kid seeking over $500 million in damages cause their boy got his face in the news?'' -- a kid from Covington, Kentucky, harassed by the Black Hebrew Israelites and the lowlife thug Nathan Phillips and his fellow thugs because he dared to be on The Mall despite being white and pro-life, and then vilified by the mainstream media and Hollywood with doctored footage of the incident, is "entitled"? Unlike, I guess, say, Tony Podesta, Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Maggie Williams? (All immunized by Comey and/or Mueller in exchange for nothing.) I hope the kid from Kentucky gets every penny he and his lawyers are demanding.
[e-mail] 03:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) What's with all the nowiki? Do you go in for being unreadable, or do you just not look how it came out? Bishonen | talk 12:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are subject to an editing restriction

This notice is to advise you that you are now subject to a topic ban applying to the subject of politics, as well as from all biographies of living persons whether political or not, across all namespaces, broadly construed. This ban is enacted as the result of a community discussion, and the restriction is logged here. Note that violations of your restriction will lead to more severe sanctions, which may include your account being blocked from editing. If you have questions you can ask on my talk page or at the administrators' noticeboard. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have indefinitely blocked you for pervasive, abusive editing while logged out over a very long period of time (we're talking about thousands of logged-out edits), including violations of your recently-imposed topic ban. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I'd be glad to create the next archive page and archive wherever you want for you, just give me a section name to archive upto and ping me if you want. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kushaba Moses Mworeko for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kushaba Moses Mworeko is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kushaba Moses Mworeko until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Alexander Gilmour for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexander Gilmour is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gilmour until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 15 November 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Herbert Ditty

The article Herbert Ditty has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NPOL. High Sheriff or Lord Mayor of Belfast are not automatically notable posts. Fails WP:GNG. Could be redirected to Ulster Protestant Action.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas [e-mail]
	Hi [e-mail], I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year,    –Davey2010^talk 00:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case notification

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/[e-mail]. Thank you. Mountain Battles (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Catherine Hamlin

On 21 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Catherine Hamlin, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Kees08 (Talk) 16:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musicians from Amarillo, Texas has been nominated for merging

Category:Musicians from Amarillo, Texas has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas [e-mail]
	Hi [e-mail], I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,    –Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stuart Reid (Scottish historical writer)

The article Stuart Reid (Scottish historical writer) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Cristyne Lategano" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cristyne Lategano and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 2#Cristyne Lategano until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Star Mississippi 03:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Natalie Visart (Q3336413)

A tag has been placed on Natalie Visart (Q3336413) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Double dames has been nominated for deletion

Category:Double dames has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of women holding multiple British damehoods for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of women holding multiple British damehoods is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women holding multiple British damehoods until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Keivan.f^Talk 16:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish social commentators has been nominated for deletion

Category:Irish social commentators has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - car chasm (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Charles Hopel Brown for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Hopel Brown is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Hopel Brown until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

-- LWG ^talk 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]