User talk:WWGB/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari

Hey,what kinda person are you??I dont need to give you any prove that he is a Shia-Muslim Because His Grandfather was a Shia,Her Mother,His Dad(Asif Ali Zardari) and even the Bhutto clan and the Zardari Tribe are strong Shia-Muslim political family of Sindh.And it is necessary to mention so because his ancestors and parents were and so do he is,and every political leader of Pakistan has his religious column specified with his particular religious believes and so you should mention his.I am a Pakistan and know more about Pakistan and political scenario then you do,so please kindly mention him being a Shia-Muslim,i am not spreading sectarianism in Pakistan but i am trying to prove the point of religious harmony of Pakistan and any Muslim could be a Pakistani leader like these shia Leaders are!Thank,i again kindly request you to mention it because many Pakistanis or non-Pakistanis visit his profile and they should be able to know his reality.Thanks Paki90 (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Piasecki

Not to belabor the matter but aviation history is part of "my thing". Frank Piasecki invented the concept of the fore-aft rotor design in helicopters. That's what he's noted for. The Chinook helicopter was designed and developed by Boeing-Vertol. Piasecki did not invent it. Obviously I can't be responsible for someone else's misunderstanding. Anyway, that's why I made those changes; to reflect his general "notability". Hope you understand. Cheers! Phyllis1753 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to thank

you for including Colin Thurston in the roundup of the list of passings from this year (2007). I was going over to that list to try to see if his name needed to be added and was surprised to find that you'd added it, I *think* before I even started on his Wikipedia article. I added a few more details since he is noted for having produced more than just Duran Duran (cf his article for more), but it's nice that you put even that up. So thanks. (Krushsister 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Deaths in 2007

Speedy tagging

Good work with speedy tagging, but one piece of advice: Some of the articles you tagged were only created one or two minutes before, so the creator might still have been in the process of adding material which could make notability obvious. This isn't an issue if the article is Joe Bloggs (born 1993) is a schoolkid, but be careful not to bite the newbies. Some new page patrollers advise starting from the bottom of the new page list instead of the top. Oldelpaso 08:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Great job on new article patrolling. Although it may seem redundant, I put in my edit summary something which describes my reason for speedy delete. Usually something like "no attacks please", "not notable", "WP:NFT", or somesuch. Other editors might find your reasoning in the edit history that way, even though the db-tag you choose will state your reason in the article as well. It's a courtesy to warn the article's author as well with the canned nn-warn or whatever template is suggested by the db-tag by pasting it onto the author's talk page. Keep up the good work. MKoltnow 03:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Seuss?

Kelsey Smith

Hello. I added Kelsey Smith to the Recent Deaths article. I see that you went in and cleaned up the entry into proper Wiki format and style. Thanks for doing so. I was not 100% sure how the page is normally formatted, but I did at least want to get her name in there. Do you know of the proper way to cite her inexact date of death? That is, should we just leave it under June 2? Or should there be some notation that the date of death is unknown? What do you think? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 15:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your input on this issue at the Recent Deaths talk page. (JosephASpadaro 23:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Birtles Shorrock Goble

Hi WWGB. You are off to such a great start on the article Birtles Shorrock Goble that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 8 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Birtles Shorrock Goble, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 11:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Bradman prize

Hilarious! Do you have any RS? Deserves its own (DYK-able!) article, I'd say. --Dweller 09:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Deaths in 2007

Hello. I have a question about the Deaths page. You seem to be a regular and an active editor on that page, whereas I am just a casual and occasional reader of it. Would you offer your input on my question for that page ... or are you not the appropriate person? Please reply at my Talk Page: User talk: Joseph A. Spadaro. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

WWGB is not only a "regular and active editor" but he is the "resident expert" on the Deaths pages. He is in Australia so don't expect an answer from him until your night.. which is his day. I am sure he will be more than happy to answer your questions and provide input. Tom M. 20:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Joseph. Notwithstanding the flattering comments from Tom, I am just a "regular editor" at the above page (although maybe a bit too obsessive?). I am happy to assist or advise if possible. Please continue to leave messages at User talk:WWGB. Regards, WWGB 23:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for getting back to me so promptly. I will take Tom M.'s word that you are the resident expert for the Deaths page. Here is my question. If you look under August 13, you will see the following entry: "Yone Minagawa, 114, Japanese woman recognized as the world's oldest person, old age." I was thinking of editing / changing that entry ... but I was not sure how to capture the best wording to do so, without being too long and cumbersome and wordy. If you read her claim to notability (she was "recognized as the world's oldest person") ... it is somewhat ambiguous in its wording. Does that wording mean (a) she was the world's oldest person ever ... or (b) she was the world's oldest person up until the time of her death (i.e., currently ... or at least "currently" up until August 12/13) ...? Clearly, the answer is "b" and not "a". I just think that the wording of the entry needs to be changed to reflect "b" instead of "a". As it stands now, one could (incorrectly, but rightfully) read and interpret the current entry to mean "a". Can you propose proper wording to reflect "b" ... without that wording being overly cumbersome, awkward, wordy, and lengthy, etc? Thanks. Please let me know your thoughts. Please reply at my Talk Page. (Joseph A. Spadaro 23:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC))
That's a very good point, the current entry is ambiguous. I suggest wording such as "Japanese woman who had been world's oldest living person ..." or "Japanese woman who was world's oldest living person at time of her death". You might like to play around with the words to convey the correct meaning while keeping the entry relatively brief. Cheers, WWGB 00:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I will give this some thought and change it when I come up with good wording. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC))
May I ask what 3RR is?? Tom M. 00:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks, I learn something new every day. Tom M. 02:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to McVicar's Bus Service

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, WWGB! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule photobucket\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 07:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No fair? Explain

I just wanted to know what made you call the edit of Georgetta Roush to link to her son Jack Roush in recent deaths as "no fair"?

In the grand scheme of things -- no disrespect to her -- she hardly qualifies as a NASCAR car owner. In a nutshell, cars can only be "owned" by one representative person each for NASCAR documentation -- nobody can "own" two cars. Lots of multicar teams put up relatives to meet this requirement. She was put up as a representative (a front name) but had little to do with day-to-day operations of the team.

Guroadrunner 12:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, if Georgette Roush does not warrant a Wikipedia article in her own name, then she should not really be listed in Deaths in 2007. It is not fair to pipe her name to her son's article, so that her death notice appears "blue" and she avoids possible deletion for being non-notable
Ah - now I understand. It is most likely that anything on her would go on Jack Roush's page, which is why I piped it. I was thinking in terms of the best place for people to find info on her. Her importance in the grand scheme of things pales dramatically to Roush, Robert Yates, or even Bill Gardner of DiGard Motorsports. Guroadrunner 08:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Carter | Talk to me 12:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul Fox

If I'm not mistaken, Paul Fox used to have his own article, but it was deleted and redirected to The Ruts (I thought the original article was Paul Fox (producer), but apparentely not). Anyhow, there was consensus at some point that Paul Fox (musician) (or whatever the original article was called) should be a redirect to The Ruts. Cheers, CP 22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, not that I've been editing it, but Asian countries tend to start their age count at 1. So if the source is from Asia (or the information is taken from an Asian source) then the person in question may be listed as one year older than than they really are. Cheers, CP 22:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem

My pleasure to help you and the project for which we share passion. --Kukini hablame aqui 07:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Looks like you've annoyed some folks... Keep up the good work, whatever it is! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Non admin closures

If you have a look over at WP:DPR#NAC - it's intended for clearing of backlogs. About 80% of discussions pointing keep, by the requisite time (5 days in AfD, 7 days in TfD etc) are unanimous and utterly non controversial and that's what they're meant for. The user who performed this close managed to violate the section on two counts - it was controversial, and he was involved. Orderinchaos 10:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

it also says Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as unambiguous as you thought. which is why I closed the DRV and reverted his edits. Gnangarra 10:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

article on line-of-duty death of NYPD Officer Timoshenko has reappeared

This article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russel Timoshenko seems to have been recreated. Was their an ok for that to have been done? If so shouldn't its history be listed on the article itself?

I ask because either there is a startling coincidence going on or the same partisans of this young man, tragic thought his situation was, who have recreated it seem to be on a rampage against the neighborhood of Crown Heights, Brooklyn where he was killed and it's institutions, (please see: Labor Day Carnival) as well as various comments about "unfairness" left on the editing history (see comments about Sean Bell) , etc. CyntWorkStuff 23:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Pendatry/pedantry

I do sometimes wonder whether I 'just do typos' or have some subtle form of dyslexia. Thanks for the correction :) --Alf melmac 07:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy new year

Adminship

I'm a bit surprised that you're not an admin. Do you think you would find the tools useful? Given your work on the Recent Deaths pages, among other things, I'd be happy to nominate you. Cheers, CP 21:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to nominate you, too. You clearly have a good handle of policy and don't get into a lot of disputes or make personal attacks, I think you'd be a fine administrator. It's really not a big deal... everyone who's proven themselves responsible should have the tools. --W.marsh 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Democrats

Hi! I noticed on the Recent Deaths page you changed "Democratic Party" politician to "Democrat" politician. Not being American, you might not be aware of the connotations of this change. It's different here from the Australian Democrats. Please see this entry: Democrat Party (phrase). To use "Democrat" here as an adjective is POV, oddly enough. I think you'll find it interesting for your reference. Otherwise, thanks for the good work! Bruxism (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hello WWGB, I have never had the pleasure of interacting with you before. I noticed that you have nominated Mandi Henson for deletion and that is why I am getting in touch with you. There is an article of a non-notable whose only references are two "fan-sites" and as far as I can tell is a "vanity" article. I am talking about the article on Mary Ann Acevedo. This case is even worse then Mandi Henson. I would nominate it myself, but I would only make a mess of the process and that is why I would like to ask for your help by asking that you do me the honors. Let me know. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DiGia

Well, you know, the world consists of two types of people - those that mark stuff with templates, and those who actually fix it :) -- Y not? 03:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Indians and 2008 deaths page

An interesting bit of minutia. "Indian" is certainly valid usage, as you have it. In the USA, I'm thinking we say someone is "Indian" if they're from India, and someone is "an Indian" if they're actually a "Native American"; although I've also heard natives of India called "Indians", I think it's less common, at least in the USA. Sometimes we say "American Indians" vs. "India Indians". Yep, it's redundant, but it's clear. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you noticed...

...last November that the Beatles Wikiproject is being represented by a picture of the Champs-Elysées. Let's see if we can't find a better picture and convince everyone to make a switch. Robert K S (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw! Thanks for that. And I was bold and changed some of the other templates to match. Except, Template:WPBeatles didn't work for some reason. The picture's different on the template page, but not on the template's application on the Wikiproject page. What's the deal? Robert K S (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CountdownSpec2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CountdownSpec2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jonathon Shively

am i correct when i state that according to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athlete, one must either be a professional athlete or have reached the highest level in his/her own amature league? some articles are about college players who have done neither of the twodjba#52 (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Crazy pet owners

"If your pet wins the Kentucky Derby, please feel free to post his death at Recent deaths". Thank you for the giggle! Be best (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

I would wish you to please stop removing redlinks from the Deaths in [insert year here]. Most of them are notable, yet no one has created an article on it yet. If they are not notable then the community can discuss. Other than that, I think you are a great contributor. Editorofthewiki 00:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: please stop

I'm sorry, but I won't stop removing old redlinks from the Recent Deaths pages. Notability in Wikipedia is established by having an article which is able to be debated by the community, through speedy deletion, proposed deletion or articles for deletion. A redlink means that the deceased does not have a Wikipedia article, so they are not currently notable by our standards. An editor would be entitled to delete a redlink immediately (and some do) but the current consensus is that redlinks may remain for one month. This gives an opportunity for an article to be written, debated if necessary, and thus establishes the notability of the deceased.

You wrote "most of them are notable, yet no one has created an article on it yet". While you may consider them notable, if nobody has written an article then that claimed notability can never be tested.

By your criteria, I could write an entry that states:

and it must remain in Wikipedia forever because someone may get around to writing an article? Sorry, but I cannot agree.

Thank you for the compliment about my other editing. WWGB (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that a lot of notable people in the Recent deaths article don't get articles because of Wikipedia's heavy systemic bias. Take my new article Valentim Amões, whom you reverted in your recent removal of the redlinks. Notable Angolan politician and businessman who died in an air accident. Since there is very few if any Wikipedians from Angola, he did not get an article until I created one.

However, in the case of the police officer, we can remove him because he is not notable outside his town and will never probably get an article. But let the communitydecide that, not you or me along. All the same, Happy editing! Editorofthewiki 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bishop Kevin Dunn

Your reasoning re Bishop Dunn is quite bizarre. If your reasoning, which was overruled by consensus (see edit history and comments byUser:Counter-revolutionary), held then there would be NO red-linked names in the obit. There are plenty. Just go back and check 2006, 2007, 2008. Besides I can always create an article later. Chill out.

Belated happy birthday (I noticed from your userpage). Gatesofheaven (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Trio of Doom

Hi WWGB. I have outlined why I think this band is notable on the talk page of the article. I am always happy to discuss further if you should disagree with me. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC).

Well, I think they're an interesting and unusual case. I would also assert that Jaco Pastorius is notable enough to confer notability on this particular band/project, but I am a bass player, so I may be biased =). Like I said, I won't take it personally if you want to take this to AfD to get a wider variety of opinions on it, and I'll accept it with good grace if the opinion there coincides with yours. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC).

The Eagles

Please accept this invitation to join the Eagles WikiProject (the band), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the The Eagles. Simply click here to accept!

Basketball110 02:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

大田

The 大田 article was created under the "Disambiguation of CJKV character names" clause of WP:DAB. If you wish to modify or move it, you need to discuss is first.--Endroit (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. This was discussed in the various talk pages, including WP:DAB, and the WP:UE rule does not always apply for dab pages.--Endroit (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the WP:UE rule carefully, it encourages redirects from foreign names here. When multiple redirects from Chinese character names have varying English names, circumstances occur where the Chinese name itself must be disambiguated. (That means the title remains in Chinese characters.) All this was previously discussed, and the "CJKV" rule was accepted as part of the WP:DAB rule. You cannot unilaterally change this, unless you initiate some kind of a discussion it the guideline pages.--Endroit (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I know it's really confusing, so I take the time to explain it every time people have questions. I encourage you to remain bold with respect to WP:UE in general.--Endroit (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal that may be of interest

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC

Removing all redlinks on deaths in... pages seems pretty bad to me. Punkmorten (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for extending my idea of keeping a list together of the expired redlinks on Recent deaths pages. I hadn't put much effort at all into expanding previous months' lists, but thank you for doing so. Bobo. 03:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but its actually User:Chandlerjoeyross who produced those charts. Regards, WWGB (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for looking after that mistake I made regarding the UserBox for Retired CF. I had been trying to create the UserBox and when I looked at the preview everything seemed fine. And then I couldn't seem to find it again. I thought I must have done something wrong and it was gone to the bit bucket, so I had to start over. Again, thanks for cleaining up my mess!!! If I could figure out how to give you an award (Cleanup Broom with Maple Leaf Cluster??) I would!! CubBC (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Reds

Should we take off the old redlinks from 2006 and earlier? Star Garnet (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

The following quote from Talk:Mark Speight provides context to Rodhullandemu's post below. WWGB (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently consensus, however incorrect, has taken the place of policy. That's what can happen when you let the lunatics run the asylum. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And that last comment pretty much sums up the whole sorry Speight saga, right commandant? Admin = good, editors = bad. WWGB (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. You try to be an Admin. You try to apply Wikipedia policy. You try to persuade a load of people who think that THEIR way is the only way that a corpus of policy is against them. I would have been quite within policy in shutting down ALL editing on that article last night to stop the edit warring and protect the encyclopedia from accusations of speculation against the available evidence. I've never liked fuckwittery, and I suggest that if you condone it, you go somewhere it flourishes. To hell with good faith. If you align with the ill-informed mob, most of whom had never edited here before, against those who volunteer their time not just to create good articles, but to go further and protect the encyclopedia against legal action and criticism, you are no better than they are. To hell with you. Complain if you like, I'm doing my job. and comments like "commandant" WILL get you blocked. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So, commandant will get you blocked, but calling fellow editors lunatics is acceptable? Interesting ... WWGB (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had similar problems with this Admin; he seems to think it's one rule for him and another for the rest of us. He also keeps referring to his 'job' (see above) and what he gets paid for. Maybe if he did have a paid job he'd have less time on his hands to nitpick and slate anyone who doesn't fit in with his view! Smurfmeister (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Does notability have geographical boundries?

Hi, as some of your past edits have inspired me to ask the above question, I thought I might pass you a heads-up to my edit on the Wikipedia talk:Notability page. I'm putting this on Star Garnet's talk page also. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Imelda Salvador et al

Just a friendly note on Imelda Salvador, Vanessa Sotto and Jaypee Sotto. When you use the :{{la|Jaypee Sotto}} format to add other articles to a deletion, you don't need to start a separate deletion page for each one. All the articles get bundled into a single deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Rob Knox AfD

RE: Robert Bourne

I am re-referencing links to Robert Bourne and pointing them towards Robert Bourne(Rower). I am then replacing Robert Bourne with a bio of Robert Bourne the british property developer, entrepreneur and philanthropist. Onelegout (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my mistakes - I am new to Wikipedia and am only just starting to get used to how things work. Would you be able to have a look at the new Robert Bourne page and suggest how I can improve it to an acceptable standard? Thank you, H Onelegout (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Edelsten

did you check p.18 of [3]? Edelsten threatens legal action?! Michellecrisp (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, a lot of my original edits (which were indeed all referenced) were removed when an admin wiped the article all clean when Wikifactsright started to get involved and disrupt. Suing someone on the basis of edits on an open edit encyclopaedia is rather impossible? of course don't know how his legal team will contact us, maybe leave a message on our talk page?! Michellecrisp (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Griffith Law

Hi, I'm just wondering about a next step for the griffith law school merge discussion. Since your reversion of a premature closure/merge several days ago, there have been no edits and there is still no change in level of consensus. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.174.249 (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. Close it is no consensus I guess. WWGB (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The term "Australian footballer"

I personally think that the term "Australian footballer" should not be used on Wikipedia. The term "Australian footballer" can refer to an Australian player of either Australian rules or rugby league football, though most would probably assume it to mean an Australian rules footballer by default. I just believe that instead of using the term "Australian footballer", we all should be more specific.

Australian rules football is actually a minor code of football where you're from (Sydney), as rugby league is the major code of football in most of NSW (excluding Broken Hill and areas within a certain distance of the Murray River) and all of Queensland and the ACT.

On some of the articles on individual days, one or more Australian soccer players are listed as "Australian footballers". Last time I checked, most Australians refer to association football as "soccer". New World Man (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The term "footballer" (or "football player") is used generically to refer to someone who plays Association football (soccer), rugby league, rugby union, Australian rules football, American football, Canadian football etc. In reference to Deaths in 2008, nationality is also reported. We can't really describe someone as an Australian Australian footballer, so footballer is linked to Australian rules football in order to explain the code. The same process is applied to American players of American football. For example, see the entry for Mel Agee at Deaths in June 2008#15. Regards, WWGB (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I felt that it should be specific to the particular code. That's why I use the term "Australian rules footballer" instead of "Australian footballer".
As for association football/soccer, when I edit lists of births and deaths, if it's an association footballer/soccer player, I refer to players from the USA (where I'm from), Canada, Australia and New Zealand as "soccer players" (as there are more popular codes of football in the aforementioned countries), and players from pretty much everywhere else as "footballers" (though I consider the term "soccer player" for a player from Ireland or South Africa to be valid). It all depends on what country he's from.
I agree it would be way too redundant (and ridiculous) to use the term "American American football player".
Oh, and by the way, since you're from Sydney, which rugby league club do you support? New World Man (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 28 7 July 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor — From the editor: Transparency
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Lebanese Australian

Thanks for finding the additional refs :-) --Matilda talk 02:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

and again ... I am nto trying to be lazy by not pursuing them myself but I am on a different track right now and there is a limit to the number of threads I can pull together at any one time ( +I should pay some attention to the real world around me too ) but at least by tagging I am leting the reader know the fact is not supported by a ref at present and I did intend to come back and resolve at some stage in the future. I really appreciate however how you have hopped in there and supported the article with cites. Regards --Matilda talk 05:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AUSDEM

Hi - I would be really pleased if you joined us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Demographics of Australia as you seem to be working on the same sorts of topics. There are only a very few of us and the idea in setting it up was to in part sort out inconsistency across the various articles listed on Template:Ethnic groups in Australia - in other words if we have some bright ideas about how to develop the Lebanese Australian article and deal with issues arising with the topic, we should apply those ideas to other articles on Australian ethnic groups. The scope is a little broader but that is much of what we do. Regards --Matilda talk 22:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

John Fogerty / Robert Johnson grave site

Your entry about the Robert Johnson grave visit is bloated, biased (it smacks of John Fogerty self aggrandizement and promotion) and inaccurate.

Fogerty was already performing CCR material again publicly before visiting the grave (July 4, 1987 "Welcome Home Vietnam Vets" HBO concert).

Fogerty's claim that he was inspired to perform his old material by the old grave visit is dubious. It also is self serving. He may have done a good thing to be one of the contributors to restoration of the grave sites, but he turned it into a publicity stunt and shameless self promotion.

Despite the above, the paragraph about the matter is the largest or one of the largest in the Fogerty wiki.

I suggest it be trimmed to reflect the actual event only, as I have tried to do. Fogerty is not the only musician to contribute to the grave site restoration. But he is the only one to utilize it for self promotion. Any claims by Fogerty that pertain to his personal inspiration from the event are suspect because he is misleading in claiming the event inspired him to again play his old CCR material.

In summary, the Robert Johnson etc. grave site affair does not rank the large percentage of space you insist on giving it in the Fogerty wiki.

Sincerely,

DM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirgemobile (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Neil Sedaka

I wasn't sure what to do about that edit so thanks for sorting it out. I was also concerned about another recent edit that user made to the article Daniel (song) where he'd made an unsubstattuated claim. I added a {{fact}} tag to that at the time, but have now reverted it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 29 14 July 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor — From the editor: Transparency
Features and admins
Features and admins
Volume 4, Issue 30 21 July 2008 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

G'day NewSouthWikiWelshman

...and I mean 'welshman' in the most gender neutral way, of course...and I'm aware that not all of you guys are from NSW.. and I'm aware that this hasn't been the most smoothly written note in Wiki's history, but hey ho...slaps head, persuades voices in head to pipe down, and continues.... Fancy attending a meetup? - We've got some interested Chapter stuff to chat about, no doubt there may be some tales of Arabian Nights (or at least Egyptian conferences), and it just generally felt like it was about time..... head over here if you're interested.... do feel free to wiki-edit away in the usual fashion too if you've got any other ideas! cheers all, Privatemusings (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)you've been spammed in this nature because you signed up as interested in being notified about this sort of thing.. hope that's ok!

Mankad (disambiguation)

Hi WWGB, the edit you made today to the above page is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). I have reverted it for this reason. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the details are at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, you said that people looking for "Mankad" are likely to arrive at the disambiguation page. This doesn't seem likely to happen because "Mankad" redirects to "Vinoo Mankad". People arriving at the disambiguation page would likely come from an article for one of the other Mankads, since the disambiguation page is linked on each of them. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Tag removed

Hi...Venky2007 just removed your copyvio tag on the article Nairsan. Do you know if he settled the issue? I don't want to tag him if he fixed it. Would you please take a look at it and figure out what to do? Thanks! SunDragon34 (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, WWGB. You have new messages at SunDragon34's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tibbits source

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia

Hi, WWGB just to let you know I'm informed that there's now no need to remove closed debates from this page manually. The wub's bot generally does it every day or two, and also adds closed ones to the archive. The wub dropped me a note a few days ago on this—I think it best to leave it to the bot as I hate it when they feel unneeded and sulk. Happy editing - Peripitus (Talk) 01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi WWGB, I was just dropping by to say this but it seems I've been beaten to it. :) I hope you find that the bot saves you some work, and do let me know if you think it could be improved in any way. the wub "?!" 20:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Olympics attack on American nationals (2nd nomination)

I have re-nominated this article for deletion. Please provide your input to the discussion. --Elliskev 17:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Deaths in 2008 and capital letters

I notice you have a similar issue to me regarding the use of capital letters in official job titles on Deaths in 2008 and similar pages. I'm trying to get a discussion going on Talk:Deaths in 2008 to get consensus about this; I'm sure the debate would benefit from your input. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics page move

I have replied to the comments you left on my talk page here. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

pink and white helicopter

Hi - could you please view the 1985 VFL report. You will see the pink and white helicopter there. He didn't own the helicopter - it was leased. I do remember when it was repossessed - the leasing company sent in some people to do maintenance and they flew it away. It was quite a scandal but of course the news from that era is not really online and I don't know the dates specifically enough to do a search through microfiched newspapers. Accordingly, since we do have an image of the helicopter associated with Edelsten as well of course quite a few sources, Edelsten's debunking is not worth much - no he didn't own it, he leased it, so he isn't lying ? Well the quote from the ref is

Dr Geoffrey Edelsten did not - repeat not - own a pink helicopter. "I certainly had a helicopter to enable me to get to the hospital from home to deliver babies, but it was blue and white, not pink," the Swans' former owner says. "It's amazing how many people thought they actually saw the non-existent pink helicopter."

Well he didn't own it, he leased it, he may have flown in a blue and white one and in order to deliver babies (most obstetricians manage with cars but ... ) however the helicopter was not non-existent as per the clip - minor qualification it was pink and white not pink. --Matilda talk 22:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded an image. I am not happy with the lead but will await your comment before changing it. Perhaps discuss on the article talk page. Regards --Matilda talk 22:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Xcerts

I deleted the page, then noticed your comments, and reviewed the history to find relevant references. It's been the target of vandalism, though, so I felt it useful to protect it from IPs for a while. Thanks for your input! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Brian Hambly

No worries at all - my own fault as I'd left my edit screen open while I went to try and find another ref for his birth date, as 1938 doesn't tally with being 71 when he died. You don't happen to have a ref (other than Whiticker) do you? •Florrie•leave a note• 09:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Clive Churchill Medal

You do realise that the information was already there on the Clive Churchill Medal page for all to see? Its right there in the two tables showing all winners from 1986 and the retrospective winners. It was a simple case of counting how many medals there have been per club from the information already supplied.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoldenV8 (talk • contribs)

@HoldenV8: In my opinion, the fact that you had to sort, collate and add the number of club winners constitutes WP:OR, even though the raw data is available in the article. No other source seems to have undertaken this process. If you do not agree, you may want to seek other opinions on the article's talk page. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@WWGB and HoldenV8: (talk page stalker) Routine calculations aren't original research, so this sort of addition is probably OK. I JethroBT drop me a line 06:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Snooty

I apologize for the revert. I looked up how manatees breathe and it indeed does seem that they breathe air. Just a bit prematurely reactionary on a seemingly improbable cause of death. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't signed in. Fixed. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Thanks WWGB (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
:) I've added a hidden comment explaining this on the page, because at first glance it does seem improbable. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Car make

Please do not remove it from lede without relocating the data elsewhere n the article. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Warrant filing

At least in Minnesota, you file an arrest warrant application before arresting someone but file a search warrant application after searching. To get permission, you just need to request it from a judge, by pretty much any means. Nothing in our article (or in my Google) indicates a second search, or a public record before July 24, so I think you might be confusing the asking with the filing. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Thanks for the info. I have tweaked the article to remove reference to a second warrant. WWGB (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 London Bridge attack

My apologies for this, I was undoing some other edits by the same ip that didn't seem entirely constructive, but obviously didn't check closely enough as this appears to be an exception. This is Paul (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Omri Dayan

Hi, I recently made a page about Omri Dayan and I saw you deleted it. I think that was a mistake. First of all this kid has a huge following and is doing very cool things and he also has a huge family history. I was gonna add some of that history today but saw that it was deleted. Could you please undo this? Javabula (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Javabula:. I did not delete the article, an admin has to do that, I just recommended deletion as the subject did not meet our requirements for notability. You can start a fresh article, but you must ensure that the subject meets WP:PERSON. I can see that the draft article has been deleted THREE times, your chances are not looking good! WWGB (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@WWGB: who can i taslk to so i can see the article again?
@Javabula:. You will need to contact User:Acroterion, the admin who deleted the article. WWGB (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@WWGB: cool thanks! hey man howe do you become a wiki "worker"? like you do or is it anyone?

Kuderu Rajagopal

Hi, I'm not sure why you reviewed Kuderu Rajagopal without tagging the page or prodding/CSDing it, considering there are absolutely no sources, even if you missed the blatant copyvio. I have now G12'ed the page. Thanks. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 13:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

External links establish notability. WWGB (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Gary O'Callaghan

Yes, rather surprised he didn't already have a BLP! He's not even my 'generation', though I may have heard him on air at times.
Page need a lot of expansion. --220 of Borg 07:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Change to RfC at NOT

You participated at this RfC; the proposal has changed a bit. Just providing you notice of that. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Babiker Awadalla

So, what are we going to do about it? I can write to Sudan government, but it would be not so easy to obtain a reply. If you agree, I'll have a try.--Folengo (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Nancy Valentine

Not sure why you say Nancy Valentine's death was unsourced. This was the source I gave: http://www.malibutimes.com/obituaries/article_294aaa66-8387-11e7-a8c4-03b9ce9ed49d.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share

I initially reverted your contribution to Deaths in July 2017 because it did not include a source.[4] Then I found your source and added it to the death notice.[5] All good. WWGB (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Brian Barder

Yes, per policy, we do need a RS for Barder's death. However, since User:Developmentgeek is Barder's son Owen, and is known to me personally, I am inclined to take that as a good enough source for now, until a formal notice or obituary appears. --NSH001 (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Paulini

Hey there, I think we should include the quote about the Christmas album back into the article as it explains to readers why Paulini chose to release the album. I know the quote's included in the Merry Christmas (Paulini album) but I'm thinking of redirecting that article back to Paulini because it fails the WP:NALBUMS criteria. What do you think? Lightsout (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Paulini saying stuff like "Christmas time is a very special time for me. It represents family, friends, love and the spirit of giving." is unencyclopedic and does not enhance the reader's understanding of the article in any way. WWGB (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
But the part where she says "this album is my way of saying ‘thank you’ for my gift that I can share with the fans" explains the reason behind album's release. Maybe we could reword that part of the quote and include it in the article. Also, I've added some refs back to the article for the information that were not sourced - ref "2014 auspop" mentions she was the first artist signed to the revived Decca, ref name="tragic" mentions the part of her sister's cancer, ref name="by my side" mentions the part of her writing By My Side in Sydney with Adam Reily, ref name="comes alive" mentions she worked on the album for five years, ref name="xmastour" mentions it's her second Christmas release and the Christmas tour, and ref name="brown" mentions The Bodyguard started in Syd in April. Lightsout (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia only requires a source to be provided once in a paragraph, even if the source is used to justify several statements. Providing a source once in a paragraph is considered to justify all claims in the paragraph relating to that source. WWGB (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments

I very nearly blocked you for edit warring. Your recent actions are very troubling. Please do not use an edit summary to attack other editors by calling their edits "mindless moronic". Do not edit war as you did on User:Milkgirls2 and Death of Alex Nieto. If the edits are vandalism then warn them appropriately and report to WP:AIV. Do not engage in an edit war yourself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Noted, but everyone has a limit. This was a sustained attack, the likes I have not encountered in my long history at Wikipedia. I appreciate your tolerance. If you take a look at my edit history, you will see that multiple socks reverted dozens of my edits. WWGB (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarawak is Malaysian

Sarawak is a Malaysian state, not a country, and set you back as Malaysian, unless you change to East Malaysian. CreatorWiki (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggest you bone up on history. When Lee was born in 1947 Malaysia did not exist! WWGB (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Very perplexing

You wrote an edit summary of "Undid revision 803549843 by Anupam (talk) put it in the Reactions article" but then you voted to delete the reactions article.

I do not understand the logic of moving something then deleting it. Is this some sort of editing strategy?

You'll note that I did not vote for delete or keep. I am open minded. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

While Reactions exists, that is the appropriate place for condolences. If it is deleted, relevant material can be incorporated in the main article. WWGB (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Risky sites

I'm not sure you will remember, but you removed a couple of links to electronic Indian newspapers like this one from the now-deleted Gaurav Kotli article with an edit summary of "risky sites". Can you please explain why? Huon (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I really don't remember what I meant by that edit summary at the time, but looking at divyahimachal.com now it has a very "tabloid" appearance and does not give me confidence that it is a reliable source. WWGB (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 West Side Highway attack

Just a note to let you know that I restored the image of the Home Depot truck that you removed at 2017 West Side Highway attack. While it's unfortunate that The Home Depot will forever be tied to this attack, having the image in the article provides extremely valuable context to the article. The image is of the identical type of vehicle used in the attack. Short of an image of the actual vehicle used (which would still show Home Depot branding), this is the best photo to represent the weapon used in this attack. Please feel free to start something up at the talk page should you disagree in order to avoid WP:RRR]. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nurmsook: Hi, sorry for my deletion. I did not realise at the time that the perp was driving a Home Depot vehicle. I thought it was being used to illustrate a generic vehicle. The image is fine. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, WWGB!

Happy New Year!

WWGB,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Wyliepedia 16:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Leo1pard's graphs

Yeah, about those graphs... I think they are pretty pointless as well, but once a talk page is created with only that graph as content, it really would have to be deleted entirely to "reset", and I'm not sure there are policy grounds for that. And blanking just leaves a ruin that is, if anything, even more useless than the pageview graph. I've just undone all of those blankings (and his follow-up freaky redirects) with the rationale that of the three options "pointless graph", "blanked page" and "misleading redirect", the first is still the best one. - Do you know of any guidelines that expressly discourage spamming these graphs? If no, then I don't think we can gainsay Leo1pard from doing that... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Hi, I don't understand why removing the only section from a talk page (such as a page view graph) leaves a "ruin". Surely it's just a talk page with no content? I don't understand why that is an issue. Regards, WWGB (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
My graphs are WP:allowed. Leo1pard (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Pegasus Airlines Flight 8622 AfD

G'day, nothing "despairing" about my reversal of the non-admin closure, the guy was way out of line - not experienced, or he would never have stated "Passes WP:AIRCRASH and hence should pertain to the encyclopedia"; and Blind Freddy could see there was no consensus. YSSYguy (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Malcolm Wakeford

I've had enough of editing this article for awhile. I'm not really happy with the latter half of it – from Albert Lee section onwards – but other than chopping whole paragraphs and sub-sections out I can't see how else this article can be improved.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Shaidar cuebiyar: Thanks for your great work to date. You may know that this has become a controversial article: the author turns out to be Wakeford's partner, and she has been blocked indefinitely for an undisclosed conflict of interest. I'll have a look at it later in the week and fix/remove the content that isn't referenced. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@WWGB: Yeah, I caught on to the CoI probs. Go for it.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

WWGB, in regard to your last edits to the Tammie Jo Shults article, because so much of it is related to her Navy career, we should stick to the naming conventions of the United States Navy. Which is to always capitalize Navy, Naval, Naval Aviation, and Naval Aviator. Would you please revert those edits? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Occupation titles "when used to describe the occupation, apply lower case to titles". We are not obliged to follow US Navy styles. WWGB (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
We use naming conventions according to country of origin and reasons that aren't in line with MOS or policy frequently enough that this should be one of those WP:IAR instances. Naval Aviator is a title, it's not a "job" and should be treated as such in this article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

8 out of 10

Hey WWGB, re: [6] and [7]: why remove 8/10 and have readers guess that by reading through the list of names? Also, what is "OR" in "counting genders is OR"? // sikander { talk } 11:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sikander: You have to find a reliable source that reports 8/10 victims were women. Counting the people yourself is original research (OR), which is not permitted in Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/04/27/toronto-police-ontario-chief-coroner-to-provide-update-at-3-pm-today-on-yonge-st-van-rampage-investigation.html, https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/8-women-2-men-killed-in-toronto-van-attack-coroner-1.3905302, http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/newsalert-eight-women-and-two-men-killed-in-toronto-van-attack-coroner-2 // sikander { talk } 13:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Bourdain

Please stop censoring my comments on the Bourdain talk page. This arbitrary and unilateral action is not acceptable. Sca (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sca: I see nothing there that improves the article, just a few editors bitching at each other. All bloody disrespectful to Bourdain. WWGB (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
WWGB: Wrong. No one's being disrespectful to Bourdain. (I was a fan of his work.) The plain fact is, suicide is the single most prominent aspect of the recent news coverage, and a key element in the story of Anthony Bourdain. This is news and personal history.
Normally I'm not one to engage in edit-warring, but unless you can offer a persuasive argument based on editorial factors, rather than personal ones (such as being "disrespectful" or sparing the feelings of others), I will feel compelled to restore your arbitrary deletions. Thank you. Sca (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello WWGB, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverting stabbing attacks edits without naming any reason

Please start discussion first before reverting my edits regarding the stabbing attacks. Reverting without real need and without naming any reason should be discussed first. --Angerdan (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you control your exuberance and seek consensus before making profound changes. WWGB (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Just to do an extended clarify the reason of my editings (beyond the stated reasons in all of my edit summaries): Due to the increasing numbers of attacks, places aren't precise/unique enough anymore to describe the context of an article name. If you have any other idea, please tell it here or lets reverse your rollbacks withou edit summaries. My edits are objectively without subjective feelings. You did rollback the edits without creating an discussion first. Which brings you in the position of possibly starting an edit war. --Angerdan (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
No, YOU made significant edits without creating a discussion first. This is called WP:BRD. Now you go to each of the pages you want to move and start a discussion to justify that move. WWGB (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I already justified my edits within the comments. But "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one." is what you didn't.
Also your reverts are against the guidelines of WP:Revert only when necessary. "You might discuss an edit on the talk page before reverting."
So feel free to choose the articles you'd like to start an discussion. --Angerdan (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the view from the category perspective gives you a hint about the usefulness of uniform names for several articles: Category:Stabbing attacks in Europe --Angerdan (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

MasterChef Australia 1

Hello. Is there anything wrong with adding the reason Nic withdrew from the competition? 2602:306:3137:20B0:1462:21DE:F174:F107 (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It's unsourced, unencyclopedic and unnecessary. WWGB (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thailand Cave Rescue

Why was death of ‘Richard Harris’ deleted? Chintan Kamani 14:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckamani (talk • contribs)

@Ckamani: Do you really think Harris is dead? Evidence? WWGB (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Damn! That was my bad. Media reported it that way as if he died. My apologies. Chintan Kamani 14:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckamani (talk • contribs)

Team Names

I was looking at that IP edit too. Are sure about that revert? SlightSmile 11:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Slightsmile: They are unsourced edits to a list that is already sourced. Probably an issue with the transliteration of Thai names, but nevertheless needs to be sourced. WWGB (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks. SlightSmile 11:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Help with Thai Cave Rescue

Hi WWGB, I posted this question on another user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DonFB#Hi,_can_you_help_please?

Can you help by any chance? Apologies if this is in the wrong place to ask but you seem to know wikipedia inside out. Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyguy1966 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Historyguy1966: Copy the cite below and paste it into the article at the desired place.
<ref>{{cite news |last1=Mahtani |first1=Shibani |title=‘He loved them more than himself’: How a 25-year-old former monk kept the Thai soccer team alive |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/he-loved-them-more-than-himself-how-a-25-year-old-former-monk-kept-the-thai-soccer-team-alive/2018/07/07/b4100076-815e-11e8-b3b5-b61896f90919_story.html |work=The Washington Post |date=7 July 2018}}</ref>
WWGB (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyguy1966 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Crawlies

This is where I show off my ignorance. That cave is deep in the tropics. I'm surprised that no one - the kids crawling through tight spaces in the beginning etc didn't encounter crawly things venomous or otherwise. I remember seeing an interview Michael J Fox talking about how they had to hire a "snake beater" to chase off cobras when they were shooting a film in the jungle there. SlightSmile 10:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

If the issue has not been reported in reliable sources then we have no reason to consider it. WWGB (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking putting that in any article otherwise I would have brought this to the article talk. I was just curious about the crawly things and took a chance asking you what you know about that kind of thing. Sorry if I'm being a bore, I do that sometimes. I find myself being so blown away by that cave rescue - wow! SlightSmile 12:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

New day at Deaths in 20xx

I assume you approve generally of my change to the FAQ about the date changing, and that you know more than I about how that date change happens. I assumed that a bot generated a new day at 00:00 UTC+14, but evidently not. Is it then a case of a bot does it sometime after 00:00, but it is unpredictable how soon, or is it manually changed? And is there any way of being either more precise or explaining the delay? Simply saying "after" that time could be many hours after. Or maybe it can be... Kevin McE (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Mollie Tibbetts

So would common sense not come into play that she died on July 18 going by the killers words of blacking our ehen accosting her that day then she was in his trunk, since the funeral home notice doesn’t work for you? Rusted AutoParts 00:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

How do we know an exact DOD? The perp drove around with her in the trunk, then dumped her in a field. He did not know for sure if she was dead at that time. She could have taken several days to die for all we know. WWGB (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but aren’t you the same person who Rags me in regards to providing a source that says the exact DOD, with Steve Ditko coming to mind? When is inference fine to use and when is it not then, if we can’t use the funeral notice saying August 21, and saying July 18 is guessing? Rusted AutoParts 00:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
The only published DOD we have (the funeral home) is covered by WP:DUBIOUS. I understand that you have a "thing" about DAOTD and BDOTD tags, but sometimes we just have to accept a lack of accuracy in such matters. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Well she’s off the list in a month anyway as the article is more about the case itself, so I’ll keep looking for a more concrete source until then. Rusted AutoParts 01:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I think Talk:Deaths_in_2017/Archive_1#Should_"Death_of_X"_articles_be_listed_here? means she stays on the death list. WWGB (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thousand Oaks shooting

I see you started the Names of the dead discussion at Thousand Oaks shooting. The two sides are split down the middle and are likely to continue on that track. So, if possible, can you please publicize the discussion at some different places so the matter can get more input from editors who are not so passionately involved in editing the article or participating on the talk page? Thanks. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Schoharie limousine crash

On 14 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Schoharie limousine crash, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the stretch limousine involved in the recent crash near Schoharie, New York, killing 20, appeared at two vehicle inspections earlier this year with different license plates? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Schoharie limousine crash), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, WWGB. 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)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop edit warring.

Stop edit warring on Springsteen on Broadway (album). You have no valid reason to be removing countries from the lead, or mentions of countries that are sourced in the table below. That's why they are there—what is listed below is summarised. I monitor plenty of music charts, including those in other languages. They were summarised before you removed them and added "10 countries", which is basic, vague and weaselly—I am trying to be specific. Do not try and find imagined "discrimination" against non-English speaking countries where there isn't any or imply with your simple edit summary that I have an "Anglo bias". The US is Springsteen's biggest market and home country; that's why it has a special mention. Either get over whatever these issues you have are, or bring it up on the talk page because I didn't add the summary in the first place. It was there to begin with. If you continue edit warring, I'll bring an admin into the conversation, especially since you've essentially now leveled what could be construed as a personal attack against me. Ss112 06:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Last time I listened to a native speaker, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Norway and Sweden were all non-Anglo. You chose to mention only Australia, UK and US. Hence, I stand behind my description of Anglo bias. Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I mistook you saying "Anglo" as more a description of race (in the derogatory modern sense used by left-leaning people) rather than Anglophone, so rephrased. Other countries were inserted before, then you made it more basic ("10 countries"), so I added a very basic mention (Australia, the UK, and US)—it wasn't a conscious choice to mention English-speaking nations only. I've now embellished for some specificity. Ss112 06:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

nonsense

Why did you remove my nonsense? cygnis insignis 02:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Because it bore no relevance to that page. Perhaps you meant to post at Template talk:Did you know. WWGB (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Assume that is where I intended to post and thought it might be welcome; I did not expect to be dismissed with a one word explanation. In what sense do you mean 'nonsense', or determine what is relevant to a local notice-board. Is it likely that others will support that view, perhaps a second opinion from a regular to point out what am I not seeing? cygnis insignis 04:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Captions and headlines aren't articles

One apiece for what has emerged and what is unknown in Fungi's death. Do you think a heart attack without witnesses can be diagnosed externally? If so, how? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:57, July 2, 2019 (UTC)

As long as an RS (thrice) states "died from a heart attack" then that will do for me. Quite happy that the listing has been removed. WWGB (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Why doesn't a contrary claim from the exact same writer do similarly for you? Happy we're both happy on ignoring the death. Unhappy with you thrice ignoring the fact that captions and headlines aren't articles, but I'll live. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:13, July 2, 2019 (UTC)

Alan Jones

Alan Jones the Australian radio broadcaster is 78 years old. This is as fact reported by multiple media outlets recently. His Wikipedia page says he is 76. Jmanley98 (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jmanley98: Please read [8]. WWGB (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Deaths in August 2019

Hi WWGB, is there a reason you reverted Special:Diff/916352487 and Special:Diff/916353516? I'm assuming it was because it was an IP edit and not following the format so I have added it in correctly along with a reference but if you have another issue with it feel free to revert it and I won't contest the change. Hintswen  Talk | Contribs  13:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hintswen: It's acceptable now that a reference has been added. Regards, WWGB (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk to me

I was really hoping you’d talk to me sometime. I’m getting frustrated at you reverting my good faith efforts with so little consideration of my efforts. I’m new to this wiki editing thing and i sure wish you’d be more helpful. Thanks The unrelated kinsman (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@The unrelated kinsman: You added "oilfield truck driver" which I reverted, as his occupation is not relevant to the shooting and has no place in the first sentence. You then reinstated the occupation, going against WP:BRD, WP:EDITWAR and WP:ONUS. When another editor reverts your edit, you either accept it or begin discussion, not just stubbornly reinstate your contested edit. Your efforts are not the consideration here, but rather the quality and consistency of Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I have several issues with what you’ve said here, but I’ll just address what I think will move this discussion along.
1. None of the links you’ve presented support your opinion that 'his occupation is not relevant to the shooting and has no place in the first sentence'. This is just your opinion, and you should have sought consensus with me and the other editors of this article before you decided to change it on your own.
2. I had no way of knowing if your revert was in good faith or not, considering your edit summary did not explain your reasoning. You even reverted a comma I had changed to a period for no reason at all. I thought it might be vandalism. If you’re going to start reverting other editors good faith efforts you’d better have a good edit summary explaining your reasoning or they might be mistaken for vandalism.
3. I started a talk discussion on the Midland-Odessa shooting page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland–Odessa_shooting#/talk/4) after your revert because I was hoping you’d give me and the other editors of this article a good explanation of what you were thinking, which you didn’t do.
I appreciate your approval of my most recent efforts. You haven’t reverted them so I assume you’re Ok with them. I look forward to discussing with you other ways to make this article better. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Re #1: The WP:ONUS for inclusion is on you. I don't need consensus to remove contentious material.
Re #2: You should always WP:AGF. If you don't want your commas reverted then don't make unrelated changes in the same edit. Don't lecture me with your 70 edits when I have over 124,000 edits.
Re #3: That message is about "perp mentioned in the first sentence" and not his occupation, so it is irrelevant here. WWGB (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow... I was hoping you’d be less combative with this rookie editor. Do you really think you’re being helpful here? I was hoping you’d take me under your wing and teach me a few things, not beat me over the head with ‘Get off my lawn!’. Seriously, you have such a low tolerance for the newbie, you’ve forgotten you were once a newbie yourself. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Rule

Hi! Please show the rule for it. Thanx Csurla (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Csurla:. See Q2 at Talk:Deaths in 2018/FAQ. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Low standards of conduct and possible bullying

1. What provision of WP:ROLLBACKUSE does your first edit fall under?

2. Do you think your second edit summary was appropriate standards conduct that meet WP:Civility?

3. Why did you feel the need to insult another user on this project by negatively characterizing their English literacy?

I look forward to hearing back from you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@MJL and 1.43.229.8:
1. Random text insertion by an anonymous IP editor, with no edit summary, which broke existing sentence construction and introduced numerous grammatical errors, viz "In 2020 she Langdon alongside Karl Stefanovic with present the newsbreakfast program Today in 2020. is currently host of Weekend Today and reporter on 60 Minutes."
2. "There is a presumption that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:
  • the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively. ...
  • the ability to communicate with other editors [for example, by using edit summaries] and abide by consensus [for example, by not engaging in an edit war after being reverted]. [Italics added by me.]
  • the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up."[9]
3. See 2.
Sheriff, you may need to explain this to your apprentice. Have a nice day. WWGB (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
[Thank you for the ping] The method to discuss a person's competency is privately on their user talk page. In no way does WP:CIR give you the absolute right to label someone incompetent or cast doubt on their English literacy levels in an article edit summary ("[WP:CIR] does not mean we should label people as incompetent.")
The IP you reverted was just doing something that a ton of editors do on this project; splitting up their contributions across several edits. It's even something considered right there in WP:CIRNOT, "It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter."
Don't quote policies at me that you clearly haven't read all the way through. The solution to this matter is simply you apologizing for being insulting (a charge which you have not actually denied), so cut the drama and get on with it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, you use expressions like "rude", "condescending", "low standards" and "bullying" against me, and expect me to apologise? Pot, meet kettle. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking to ensure you will not cause similar issues in the future and an apology is my preferred method of accomplishing that task. You still have not denied you were being insulting towards another editor and have now tried to equivocate instead of taking responsibility for your comments. I'm willing to file an WP:AN/I report as an alternative. What would you have me do instead? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm done here. WWGB (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Information icon I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so I am offering this formal level one warning. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a nice and respectful manner. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain editors. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Reluctant message

I have a thread involving you an AN/I. I am extremely reluctant to advise you of this, as i would have preferred to have dealt with this privately with a mediator, but the official advise of the WMF was that I had to report it publicly on AN/I. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the thread now. This should have been dealt with confidentially but I was advised by the WMF to make it public. Which is awful advise. It was a mistake to have followed their advise. I don’t appreciate you sexually harassing me but there are no appropriate mechanisms to prevent you from doing so in future. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
And after the removal was reverted a couple of times I have now closed and collapsed it. However, hopefully we can all agree that the two of you staying away from each other is best for everyone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:, I would like nothing more than "staying away from each other", but User:Chris.sherlock continues wikihounding me, following my edits and making edits and comments on topics in which s/he has shown no prior interest. Please see Talk:Clarrie Jeffreys, and also compare our recent edit histories across articles. EDIT: In fact, s/he has followed me and further edited at least 20 pages that s/he had never visited before. I can provide a list of those articles on request. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
(note: Chris.sherlock emailed me and so I will be sending this to them via email in response) The list of articles with overlap is a lot larger for 6 days time than I'd have expected. Some of this can be dismissed as common interests - you both appearing at topics in the news is not surprising (e.g. Kenosha protests related articles/talk pages). Clarrie Jeffreys seems to be at the heart of several pages of overlap - WWGB edited first, Chris.sherlock followed with several pieces, including talk page discussion, posted the birth/death in a few places which WWGB then followed them around to. There are also a couple of very old articles where neither of you had edited and then suddenly both of you have. I would say neither of you have done a good job of avoiding the other. I'm not going to try and figure out who is "more wrong". Instead I will reiterate that you should both make an effort to stay away from each other (outside of sprawling discussions where you can avoid each other while still working on them, like Kenosha). If the conflict continues then we'll be back to ANI for a two way iBAN, which I would think neither of you would want considering you'd have both violated it this week if one had been in place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"Arsons"

WordHippo says we're both right, so you win this time! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

But a mass shooting doesn't require mass murder, murder or even serious injury, just more than three shooting victims. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Do you think Wortman distinguished between the two actions? Did he think "I'll shoot this guy but I will murder that one". The fact is that he just shot people, and most happened to die. WWGB (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I thought you thought "mass shooting" made "mass murder" obvious, by your edit summary. No idea what murderers or shooters think, worst I've done is wound a few teenagers with a hockey stick. It wasn't illegal, at the time! While you're here, mind elaborating on why nurses and teachers aren't noteworthy jobs to lose? More impactful to a community than losing mere "local residents", I figure. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The whole victims thing is a slippery slope, as you know. Names? Ages? Occupations? As usual, we will need to have the same arguments on the talk page. Bus Stop is already there and waiting. Someone recently tried to add a handyman, a retiree etc. I'm not conceding anything about victims for now. WWGB (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Me neither for now. But once police release a list, I may weigh in. Been a while, not sure I still have another round in me. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
We're both right about documentary subjects being reality TV personalities, too, so it was technically-though-not-morally wrong of you to suggest we aren't. I mean, unless it's a documentary about a warehouse fire, functional buildings lack personality. But anytime a TLC producer gets its claws into a duo as "dysfunctional" as two stuck together, a lightbulb goes off in its hindbrain, sssignaling editors, cameramen and supervisors to make it seem like there's a conflict to overcome by the end of each episode (barring a two-parter special). Granted, their Channel Five show may have been a bit more like traditional feature news. But TLC, Discovery Channel and Jerry Springer are all about hooking viewers for advertisers. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi, question for you since I respect you and don't think you are an interested party here: Another editor struck out a comment I made on an AfD as "inflammatory and off-topic." Regardless of whether it was or not (and I do think it's on topic, though a bit on the nose) - is this even allowed by policy? You can read the rest of their edits but it's getting a bit heated in there. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. Vernon: It is my understanding that Editor B may only strike out AfD comments by Editor A if Editor A is a sockpuppet. If I were you, I would remove the striking from your comment, and leave a message on the talk page of Wikieditor19920, asking them not to interfere with your comments in future. If they persist, you make need to ask an admin to become involved. Regards, WWGB (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nick McKenzie page, repeat BLP breach

Hi User:WWGB. Really appreciate if you can keep eye on consistent vandalism of Nick McKenzie page. Persistent single purpose editor keeps placing large chunks of non NPOV material that aims to attack. Page may need to be locked? Qldsydmel (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

WWGB
Qldsydmlb

WWGB you were part of a group who received an email from me 14 February 2020. A number of editors had worked on the material I posted and it was looking terrific. It has now all been deleted. This page is for public editing, when someone works hard to add factual information that is also referenced and gives balance to the page, there is nothing to stop anyone changing it. For one editor to simply delete that with a reference to vandalism is unacceptable and defies the guidelines of Wikipedia. I have no objection to editors working on information I provide as seen in my last email to you on 14 Feb. I have not made changes to any other editors work and respect what they do. However, I will not be intimidated by other editors who obstruct what I am doing and I will continue to add to the page unless they are prepared to work with me. The choice is yours and Qldsydmlb. Please pay me the courtesy of a reply. PNGChimbu (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You want a reply? Here's my reply. You are conducting a vendetta against Nick McKenzie on behalf of your buddy Ben Roberts-Smith. WWGB (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Ron Haddrick

What part of Vale Ron Haddrick 1929-2020 don’t you get? He is dead! He died this week. That his why that tribute was posted Please drop your vandalism.Castlemate (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Castlemate: Hey dude, drop the wild accusations. Show me the evidence that Haddrick died on the date you quote. WWGB (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Australia fires - relative size

https://time.com/5758186/australia-bushfire-size/

At least 24 people have been killed as bushfires have burned more than 12 million acres in Australia—an area approximately the size of the U.S. states of Vermont and New Hampshire combined.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/world/australia/australia-wildfires-photos.html

Flames have blackened an area the size of Guatemala

https://blog.wwf.ca/blog/2020/01/08/australian-bushfires/

burning more than 10 million hectares — an area the size of Guatemala.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6376571/australia-wildfire-size-canada/

To give perspective, the fires cover a larger area than the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island

All the best.

Edgar (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Edgar81:. Hi, I notice that all of your cites are from North America. Saying that the destruction is similar in area to Guatemala or Tennessee is meaningless to almost all readers in Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania ... (including me). If a comparison must be made, at lesst give a range of alternatives from around the world, for example: "roughly the size of South Korea, Iceland or Guatemala". Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@WWGB:. Thanks! Done.Edgar (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@WWGB:. It's 11.2M hectares now - roughly the size of Liberia, Honduras, Bulgaria or half of UK. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-bushfires/australian-prime-ministers-approval-rating-slumps-as-bushfires-rage-idUSKBN1ZB0OU Feel free to update the article if you will.

Edgar (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Backpacker Murders

Hey, I noticed that you changed my edit on where Milat was imprisoned at, any reason why given he was transferred from Goulburn to Long Bay? Mrbuskin (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mrbuskin: Milat was imprisoned at both centres at various times, so both should be reported. WWGB (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@WWGB: Ok it just reads like he was in two places at once is all. Another thing was his cause of death hasn't been definitively identified yet hence why I just said terminal cancer in the infobox, given that he was suffering from both oesophageal and stomach cancer should we include both in the infobox? Mrbuskin (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

question

regarding 03:30, January 13, 2020‎ edit/undo of 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike "name provides no benefit to reader", I disagree with this. at least to american readers, the name is distinct and piques interest in the man and the situation that led to the attack. incidentally his death was also specifically cited by the u.s. president (though not by name) as one of the reasons for retaliation. seems a good use of 47 characters to me. can you explain to me why it provides no benefit? i am not a frequent editor familiar with all the etiquette, i hope this is appropriate manner to approach this, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fythrion (talk • contribs) 06:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fythrion: If it is noteworthy that the victim was a U.S. citizen, or that he was Muslim, then that should be included. Many editors believe that the inclusion of non-notable victim names does not benefit the reader. Whether his name was Nawres Waleed Hamid, or something else like Jamaal Ali, would mean nothing to 99.9% of our readership. Thanks for your question and your interest. Regards, WWGB (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation and the edit. I will say though, that the details of his demographic data may be noteworthy to many beyond just his religion. He was an Iraqi, who not only became a naturalized U.S. citizen and had children/family in California, but who then chose to return to Iraq to work with U.S. forces. Only then was he killed by Iranian-allied forces operating in the region, as part of an effort to quell anti-Iran sentiment amongst Iraqis. It's just an unusual set of circumstances overall. Anyhow, thanks for the comment and edit.--Fythrion (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ivan Milat

Well, that AfD was quick. I wasn't even aware it existed until just now. That the article is pretty much just copy and pasted from Backpacker murders violates WP:CWW because it's not attributed. I'm surprised nobody mentioned that. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: The decision to allow the article is both annoying and frustrating. Milat has been included in the crimes article for more than 14 years. Then an editor decides to recreate a cut-and-paste bio article when Milat dies, and others think "well, he's Ivan Milat, of course he should have an article." Sad. WWGB (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please Don't

Please don't delete sourced material .It's against wikipedia RS. Alex-h (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, the argument is that the source wasn't reliable, so... El_C 12:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to note that Alex-h has repeated this distruptive behavior for three times during this week on challenging articles with high visitation. please see that:

  • At the first, he emphasized on adding undue weight material is n't supported by RS here and here
  • the second one, he was trying to insert material with no RS here and here while he had got warning from me and other
  • the third one,he inserted material without RS, when it was reverted because of lack of RS, he reverted it again by mentioning that material with source shouldn't be picked up!! Intersting! as well as he was warned by me
  • Using un reliable source (ncr blog)

@El C: they are just examples shows that he don't care about reliabity of sources and attempt to adding povish content into high visitation article. please leave comment. Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Lennon's MBE renouncement

Do you have a source that an MBE cannot be removed at the recipient's request? My source has the medal and Lennon's letter rediscovered in the Queen's archives in 2009. Wlmg (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wlmg: It is possible to return an MBE but not to renounce it. This is written up at List of people who have declined a British honour#Renouncing an honour and in the second-last paragraph of John Lennon#1966–1970: Studio years, break-up and solo work. WWGB (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Killing of Tessa Majors

Hiya. Just want to check you saw my response at Talk:Killing_of_Tessa_Majors#Tess_Majors'_Preferred_Name_and_Pronouns - would be good to get your thoughts? Best, Darren-M talk 20:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I realized it just now that the article "List of Finance Companies in Jaipur" clearly violates WP:NOTDIR, therefore should be deleted. I was ignorant while editing the article, I just focused on finding and adding some credible citations, my mind didn't go - as to why this article/list even needs to be on Wikipedia.

Thanks to your latest edit on the article, I realized I contributing on the wrong article :)

Fedderlloyds (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Murder of Anni Dewani

Thanks for watching Murder of Anni Dewani. I've configured indefinite pending changes now; let's see if that's enough. Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC).

Graeham George Goble

Hey there,

You saw that I had spent some time on Globe’s article in late October, re-writing a lot of it and removing the slang and casual language. It was poorly written in my opinion and wanted to make it sound and read better.

I also removed things that do not directly relate to him. (Eg. LRB have their own article, so this section should summarise his time in the band only.), as well as removal of excessive info on his albums, unreferenced and inconsequential information. I looked at it today and I see you undid it all.

Someone else then reversed your undoing, and said they thought it looked better after I had done my edit. Then, you undid that as well and mention you sought consensus.

Here, you have 2 people ‘in’ consensus believing my edit was better, so perhaps that’s is the consensus you’re seeking?

An edit war helps no one. I admit that I could have and should have put some [citation needed] for unreferenced statements. So perhaps, I could re-look at my edit, and use that out replace some of what was there, because I may have been a little over zealous with what I removed.

What do you think? Tobyjamesaus (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus:. I do not have a problem with a revision of the Goble article. My concerns with your previous edit were two-fold: (1) you omitted critical content such as Goble's Million-air Awards (2) all changes were rolled into one humongous edit, which made it extremely difficult to revert any challenged variations. I was unwilling to go back and reinsert what I considered to be good content on a sentence-by-sentence basis.
Can I suggest that you make and save any changes one paragraph at a time? In that way, it is easy to discuss and/or challenge any disputed edits. I am also mindful of WP:CAUTIOUS.
The anonymous IP was also reverted by another editor, so the "consensus" count is currently 2-2.
I am happy to co-operate to improve the Goble article. WWGB (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@WWGB:, fantastic to hear and that's a great suggestion. I'll have a look at breaking down the edits now, so you can see what I do. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi WWGB!, How are you? I wondered why you reverted the categories on Robert Aaron Long when none of the categories violated BLP:CRIME. It was just his year of birth and his original town. It's the same with the Boulder shooter. CoryGlee (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: Hi, I was under the impression that redirects are not usually sorted to article categories, but if you want to put them back I will not object. Regards, WWGB
Thank you friend, I will add them back but not out of stubborn or going against what you did. I will add them back just because if you check Patrick Crusius, Connor Stephen Betts and other mass shooters without their articles they have categories that redirect to the shooting article. I hope I made it clear (English is not my first language). I will just add his year of birth and his town of origin. I totally agree that in the case of Long, categories such as "American mass murderers" are incorrect as he has not yet been convicted. Just what the info already given says. Thank you for understanding dear friend. Best regards. --CoryGlee (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Confusion

Hello with a lot of respect because the influencer is not notable. I added it thinking that Wikipedia could keep it since on the page of the movie The Forever Purge is the name of the 19-year-old victim and his 20-year-old girlfriend? Nasty bits (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nasty bits: The inclusion of the deceased's name in another article does not make him notable. For permanent inclusion in the Deaths list, the deceased would have to satisfy one criterion for notability, such as WP:CREATIVE, WP:VICTIM or WP:ANYBIO. I just don't see Barajas having achieved notability prior to his untimely death. Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Do you think this information is relevant that I added [10]. Nasty bits (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not see any basis for notability. Removed. WWGB (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
That means that the death of the priest had to come from media such as the BBC or the official Vatican News website to be able to fill the list of notoriety or relevance the source that was added is not relevant ACI Prensa [es] 🤔.Nasty bits (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Joanne Lees

It has been proposed before, but I have proposed Joanne Lees be merged into Murder of Peter Falconio--Darrelljon (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines regarding the deaths lists

Hi WWGB, As you know the guidelines regarding the death lists are stated at the top of every list of deaths. However, I came across some of your edits that suggest other guidelines:

Do you know where I can find the grounds for these guidelines/rulings? I agree with them and may need them in the near future to justify some cleaning up. Mill 1 (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Mill 1:
If you check FAQ #2 at the top of Talk:Deaths in 2021 it says "If there is no article after one month, then the death notice is removed from the list.".
Concerning photos, regular editors have decided to keep the deaths pages as simple as possible, so as not to slow down loading time. That is why FAQ #3 says "Editors have decided by consensus to use a simpler cite". While there has never been a specific discussion about the inclusion of photos, they would similarly slow down the loading time. So, I think it's fair to say there is no consensus to include photos in these lists. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi @WWGB:
Thank you for your feedback. I can work with that. Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@WWGB: FYI: Talk:Deaths_in_January_1995#Format_and_other_changes. Thanks again. Mill 1 (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Murder?

Is there a rule in wikipedia that indicates when we label something a murder? 6 people being shot and killed is a murder, no?Yousef Raz (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yousef Raz: According to WP:BLPCRIME, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law". By applying a murder category to an article, you are implying that the accused has committed murder. In such cases, we await the outcome of the trial before labelling the event as murder. Regards, WWGB (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
By labeling an incident a murder does not mean the accused committed the murder; it merely means that someone killed someone. WP:BLPCRIME would apply if the accused had an article, and the accused was labeled a murderer.Yousef Raz (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
No, someone killing another is homicide, not murder. It becomes murder when it is ruled that way. For example, if Derek Chauvin is ruled not guilty, then George Floyd was not murdered. WWGB (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
"Someone killed someone" was an oversimplifaction. Derek Chauvin is not denying that George Floyd died, the point of contention is whether George Floyd's death was criminal. There is considerable debate about George Floyd's death. In an instance in which kills 6 people are shot and there is no serious discussion claiming the incident was not criminal can be safely called "murder".Yousef Raz (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Names of minors

Is there a rule on Wikipedia about naming minors? The reason I edited the Home to Bilo page to add the names and ages of the Nadesalingam children is because these facts are often misreported in Australian media, even though there is an official website for the cause and this information is available there. I ask because you labelled my edit as "No benefit in naming minors" because I strongly believe there is for multiple reasons. If their names should not be used, I obviously understand (and revert to your guidance as I am only new), but I think it's extremely important to include the ages of the children, especially that of the youngest as she was only 9 month old when sent to detention. Thank you very much in advance for helping me understand this! Voblercobbler (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Voblercobbler: I am mindful of WP:BLPNAME, in particular, withholding names when "doing so does not result in a significant loss of context" and "whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value". Also, "presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons". I see no benefit to the reader in publishing the names of the children. I agree with you that the inclusion of their ages (or dates of birth) does enhance the reader's understanding of the issues. In summary, I agree with publishing the children's DOBs, but cannot support the inclusion of their names. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@WWGB: I will try and edit the article back to only include the DOBs. Although they are definitely high profile and most people would recognise their faces, I think they are usually just known as the "Biloela Girls" because the family is usually referred to as the "Biloela family" with names listed afterwards. The names of the girls do get mixed up in the media, however, and that annoys me a lot. Thanks for your guidance! Voblercobbler (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@WWGB: Done! This story is VERY close to my heart so I appreciate you being able to give some perspective along with general guidance. I think it's particularly important to include their ages because of how horrific it is that the younger daughter was only 9 months old when she entered detention. She will soon celebrate her FOURTH birthday behind bars and this is such a core part of the public case to free the girls. They are missing their young lives and my heart breaks. Thank you again for your guidance. Voblercobbler (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Astroworld Festival crowd crush concerns.

Hello, WWGB. I am feeling unwell, so I will make this as short as possible. (Sorry.) I saw your talk page comment, saw it wasn't quoted properly, edited it, saw it was the wrong group/person, edited, saw it had the wrong citation and was paraphrasing, removed the sentence and created a new one. This was a problem last month so I did a check with the Earwig's Copyvio tool and the percents ranged between 44.8% and 16.7%. This is worse that last month and the 44.8% article didn't exist last month. I believe that this might need escalation and wanted to bring my concerns to you. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Turns out a had a high-ish fever, but that has been brought down. To attempt to explain, I initially brought this up at the DYK talk page section on the article last month. The editor was talked to about it and given advice. I saw that you had additional user permissions and was one of the more active users on the article. However, I apparently misunderstood which rights you had so I apologize for the trouble. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Trinidad(ian) vs Trinidad and Tobago

I undid your change of Kenny J's citizenship from "Trinidad and Tobago" to "Trinidadian". There is no single adjective to refer to citizens or nationals of Trinidad and Tobago (except the informal "Trinbagonian"). Using "Trinidadian" as an adjective in an informatl sense is big-island chauvinism (something I've been guilty of many times); using it in a formal sense is a denial of the national identity of the country. Using it in a formal context to describe a person amounts to making very specific assumptions about their relationship to their national identity and strikes me as something we should never do in Wikipedia's voice. Speaking as a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago -- Guettarda (talk) 07:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Please see List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations. The relevant adjective is Trinidadian or Tobagonian. As Kenny J was born in San Fernando, the correct adjective is Trinidadian. WWGB (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it's not. It's like saying "New Yorker" for a person's citizenship. Guettarda (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Also you shouldn't make editorial decisions based on an unsourced Wikipedia article. Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Sub sections re: Astroworld

Following up on your article tag re: length on Astroworld Festival crowd crush. If not from you, then from someone else, given what will likely be a messy cut period where important details would be lost I wanted to try to get started on multiple sub articles with redirect links from the main page but was concerned about the delay in getting those drafts I'd create eventually approved given the situation's still very much still in flux re: causes of death hadn't yet been announced, etc. Just looking for some advice and direction on this. Onan808 (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

dynastic spouse?

Hi, WWGB. Regarding this edit that you have reverted, do you have anything better than "dynastic spouse", please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I've taken out "dynastic" again. That's obviously wrong. Please feel free to replace "daughter-in-law of ..." with something more appropriate, as you see fit. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
She appears to lack any notability. I have nominated the article for deletion. WWGB (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Deaths in January 2014

Thanks for your reversions to Deaths in January 2014. I have no idea what happened. I'm using the tool Wikipedia:WPCleaner to fix links and clearly it did far more than that. I will report this but it will have to be at least in a days time. I won't be using the tool between then. Thanks again. Tassedethe (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Pls don't undo the edits..

We all know, with full understanding, that 'insulting respected individuals' is wrong. Completely wrong. Please, be mannered. Please remove those cartoons fast. Please understand the situation.

You also have loved ones. Imagine when they are being insulted in cartoons like those. You know how it feels. That's how the pious believers feel when they learn about these. Please have some mercy. Please remove.

With hope, A concerned citizen 111.92.117.232 (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The image is not published to disrespect the prophet. We do not disrespect anyone, others have made it earlier and Wikipedia is just giving accurate coverage on it. If I have loved ones insulted by others with that cartoon, I would love for other people to spread this with no note of positivity. In fact, Wikipedia is neutral and does not condone everything it covers. GeraldWL 10:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Query

Hi WWGB. I'm just curious as to why you removed a citation - the better of the two - in a change which your edit summary noted as "fix", in the 2022 deaths article. Is there some kind of unwritten rule about only having one citation there? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: Only one reference per death is necessary, to confirm the death. The guide at the top of Deaths in 2022 includes "reference" (singular). Any other information about the deceased can be derived from his/her article. If you think your source is "better" then go ahead and replace the original source. Regards, WWGB (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello WWGB,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 823 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 847 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Campaign launch? Huh?

The event may have been called a campaign launch, but my question is why? As my Edit summaries said, they have been campaigning for months. Why is this event, so late in the campaign, call a campaign launch? Without further explanation, it just sounds weird. If there is a good explanation, can we tell the reader please? HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48: I think that is a question for the Liberal Party, not Wikipedia editors. Reliable sources call it the official launch, so that’s what it is. Having the official launch when ~30% of electors have already cast their vote seems strange to me too. WWGB (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
It certainly is, and that's why I feel it requires some sort of explanation. I have asked on the Article's Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Carman L Deck

it is a remarkable and verified case Artisyukil (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The case may be remarkable, the deceased is not. WWGB (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Reactions to Innocence of Muslims for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reactions to Innocence of Muslims, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to Innocence of Muslims until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

fix for the 2022 laguna woods shooting page

Hello regarding your reversion of some of my edits I have changed the language to clarify what law enforcement precisely said and hopefully the change will be good enough to assuage your concerns. as I said in a comment that I made on one of my earlier edits on the page, I definitely think that not having information which talks about Chou’s motivations in the leaves out really important info.

On an unrelated note I am new to Wikipedia but I see that you’ve been on the encyclopedia for a long time so if this is not the right way or if there is an established way that these content issues get resolved please let me know what the proper way is. Thanks for your help! Thundercloss (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thundercloss: That version is much better. I have made a few tweaks. Regards, WWGB (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Deaths in 2022

Sorry for a typo in my edit summary for the edit which reverted your manual revert of my edit. It was 9 July, not 9 June. Pachu Kannan (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Cites in lead

Hello! I just thought I'd let you know citations in the lead are totally appropriate and conform to WP standards. See MOS:LEADCITE. To not be redundant, the cites have been bundled. A good example I like to use are the lead cites bundles on Marjorie Taylor Greene's article, which is currently GA status. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.

I, on the other hand, am grateful for your corrections to my sloppy editing of the article on the Sacramento shootings. I will try to be more careful in the future. May I presume that you agree with my removal of all references employing Twitter? Dgndenver (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dgndenver: Hi and welcome. Some Twitter sources may be acceptable. Perhaps read WP:TWITTER if you have not already done so. Regards, WWGB (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Carmel Heah for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carmel Heah 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/Carmel Heah 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.

Ploni (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I’d prefer if you stopped stalking my edits

I’m not an idiot, I know you have some sort of alert for when I edit something because you immediately jump on articles I recently edited. Obviously I can’t make you stop but it’s creepy behavior and I’d prefer if you stopped. Thanks. TheXuitts (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@TheXuitts: I am not stalking you and strongly resent the allegation. A look at my edit history will show that I have been editing attack articles for many years. I was not aware that you made the “elder abuse” addition until you brought it to my attention. I make edits on the content of the article, not the identity of the contributor. Don’t let paranoia rule your life. WWGB (talk)<

Why the El Paso shooting (as well as the Poway and Christchurch shootings) is a Columbine copycat attack

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2019/08/04/the-el-paso-shooting-and-the-gamification-of-terror/

This article from Bellingcat states that shootings like El Paso, Poway and Christchurch trace their influence from Columbine. From the article: "What we see here is evidence of the only real innovation 8chan has brought to global terrorism: the gamification of mass violence. We see this not just in the references to “high scores”, but in the very way the Christchurch shooting was carried out.[...] The Poway Synagogue shooter attempted to copy Tarrant in both these tactics, posting a musical playlist along with his shooting. [...] Due to the “unique” tenor of conversations on /pol and the density of absurd memes 8chan is known for, observers might be compelled to view what’s happened here as more unique and novel than it truly is. The three 8chan massacres do represent an evolution in far-right violence, but they are very much tied to a decades-long tradition of murder. We can see this even in the obsession with “high scores”. On April 19, 1995, right-wing extremist Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb outside the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. Four years later, in 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed thirteen of their classmates in Columbine High School in Colorado. Prior to masterminding the attack Eric Harris wrote constantly of his dedication to Hitler and Nazi ideology. Dave Cullen, a journalist who studied the attacks and combed through Harris’s journals, noted that the young killer was also obsessed with Timothy McVeigh Cullen writes: “In his journal, Eric would brag about topping McVeigh. Oklahoma City was a one-note performance. McVeigh set his timer and walked away. He didn’t even see his spectacle unfold.”"

You can definitely see the similarities the Christchurch, Poway and El Paso shootings have with the Columbine shooting. All three had the perpetrators copycat from another major mass murder, cite those perpetrators as an inspiration for them, and "gamify" their attacks (i.e. try to get a "high score" of their own, which amounts to killing as many people as they can). Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Melanie Bracewell

I'm leaning toward WP:NOTNEWS on this "controversey." "Comedian upsets a Reddit forum" is a bit trivial, don't you think? OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: I think the coverage of the incident in mainstream media (NZ Herald) elevates this above the trivial. WWGB (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam

On 28 April 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam, 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. Stephen 23:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LastRomance.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LastRomance.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello WWGB,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

insisting on your personal view is not fair

@WWGB Why do you insist on applying only your personal opinion in articles instead of paying attention to sources???!! That's how you draw articles.

like the article Death of Mahsa Amini. Sources there show how the incident has been happened but you just insist on saying it is allegedly .. please be neutral. H2KL (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"Evidence" is provided in a court, not on YouTube. Reports are provided by unnamed people, how do we know they are telling the truth? WWGB (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@WWGB we are not in a court .. we are in wikipedia .. and we must say whatever the sources tell us.. not personal view. H2KL (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
You mean sources like Iran International, which is known for its "anti-Islamic Republic line", and IranWire, a forum for "Iranian citizen journalists"? Yes, very reliable sources ... WWGB (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Dear @WWGB there are almost 120 sources in the article .. and I think we must not even judge the sources .. wikipedia is not for that..
your recent edition on the article is neutral .. thank you H2KL (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Paul Green

"don’t name children" - is that general policy? First I’ve heard, but I bow to your superior knowledge if so. Please ping if/when responding. Thanks. Boscaswell talk 02:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Boscaswell: It's not mandatory, but WP:BLPNAME provides "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." The naming of young children does not benefit the reader's understanding. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@WWGB: gotcha. It makes sense. This is a horrific story and I’ve no doubt that hundreds of thousands if not millions of people here in Australia have been affected by it, particularly those in North Queensland. To that end, I very much prefer the phrase "took his own life", rather than "died by suicide". The meaning of both is clear, but the latter is rather harsh, unnecessarily clinically impersonal, I feel. Whereas the former is easier to accept. A euphemism, you may think. It’s softer, certainly, but I don’t think that that makes it any less acceptable. Can you agree, please, or if you can’t, accept a change back? I spent a good few hours working on this article on waking this morning, when I saw that he had taken his own life, in order to bring it up to a reasonable standard. Hey, you can thank me if you like! Rather than peremptorily just dismissing wording that I’d chosen, carefully. ;) Thanks, and all the best. Boscaswell talk 06:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@Boscaswell: A lot of the literature about suicide says we should not use words that suggest culpability of the deceased. Saying "committed suicide" or "took his own life" puts responsibility on the victim. I just think that "died by suicide" is a more neutral expression and free of blame. If you strongly want "took his own life" I will not revert, but personally I prefer "died by suicide". Thanks, WWGB (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Definition of what counts as "Mass murder"

Hi there,

I just want to know what is considered as mass murder. The 2021 San Jose shooting is considered as mass murder with nine victims and one dead perp. However, the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and the 2021 Boulder shooting are not despite having higher victim fatality counts. I'm asking this in good faith so that we're clear.

--Birdienest81talk 14:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Birdienest81: The issue is not the number of victims, but the status of the alleged perpetrator. In the case of San Jose, the perp died at the scene, so his guilt as a murderer is not in doubt. In the case of Pittsburgh and Boulder, however, the alleged perp is facing murder charges before the courts. We cannot call these cases "murder" until such time as there is a conviction for murder. In the mean time, they are "mass shootings". If the alleged perp is convicted of murder, only then can the "mass murder" categories be applied. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Sterling work

Hi. Thanks for your determined rollbacks of vandalism by the IP 2001:8f8:1a65:6c7b:7020:fc69:f856:efa3, which is one address in the IP range being used by banned editor and sockpuppeteer Bestf123 (all you have to do is check the almost identical list of targets and article interest within their contributions and you will spot the similarities). Thanks again. Ref (chew)(do) 17:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: Thanks for your message. We can't let the bad guys win! Regards, WWGB (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

New Category

I was about to create the new category re January 2022 crimes in Oceania when you reverted the article on the murder in Australi ! Hugo999 (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Always a better idea to create a category before you apply it to an article. WWGB (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

PIT

Hi, WWGB – just clarifying here about the edits to the PIT manoeuvre link on the 2022 Saskatchewan stabbings article, rather than trying to reply via edit summaries! My first edit removed the piped link, because I figured that [[PIT-manoeuvre]]d was tidier than [[PIT maneuver|PIT-manoeuvred]]. I thought I checked that [[PIT-manoeuvre]] was a valid redirect, but it wasn't so I just self-reverted – that's why the piped link went back in the article. To avoid a redlink, I've now created the redirect, so all's good I think. Cheers, MIDI (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Kyle Rittenhouse

Your reversion of me on this article, removing "self-defense" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kyle_Rittenhouse&diff=1110191471&oldid=1110190538) seems to me to be lacking a facially valid edit summary. However, since I am assuming good faith, I invite you to engage in the dialog which I started about this, which is ongoing on that article's talk page. Thank you. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Old age?

If you do "old age" for The Queen, you'll have to do it for all. Can of worms. Ref (chew)(do) 04:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: I have started a discussion at Talk:Deaths in 2022. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Juliet Sear

Notice

The article Juliet Sear has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no independent sources demonstrating notability

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

On personal attacks

I note with interest your selective application of WP:NPA, as the edit summary for this edit where I was directly called a "troll" remains, and you've made no effort to have the offending summary WP:REVDEL'd as a personal attack, but you won't hesitate to edit war with me about returning the name-calling in-kind. Now, stop editing my comments or start behaving like you're actually interested in removing personal attacks and not just the ones you disagree with. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for any admin to suppress the edit summary in question. Alternatively, you can revert that particular edit and reinstate the comment that I removed if anybody thinks that edit was made in poor faith. I'm good with either (or both). Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Removing entries from "Detainees of the Mahsa Amini protests"

Please stop removing entries from Detainees of the Mahsa Amini protests.

Every detainee that is being added to this list is either of significance to the Mahsa Amini protest or their action has had an important effect that makes it worthy of documentation. There are dozens and dozens of detainees (and counting) and the fact that this list is very short shows that a criterion of notability is already being applied.

The reason some of the detainees don't yet have a wiki article of their own is that the events are unfolding quickly and no one has yet taken the time to create an article for them. If the purpose is to document, inform and keep track of the events, then the information is valid and should not be removed. As an example Donya Rad that you keep removing from the article has a has an entry on wiki Farsi: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/دنیا_راد BlueBlack (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  • This is reasonable. It is an ongoing event, so some pages in Wikipedia has not been created. On the other hand, it is not mandatory include a Wikipedia link of everybody. --BoldLuis (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Reactions to the Mahsa Amini protests

Why are you keep deleting the content that I'm adding with a lot of problems that I'm having in Iran in this section?!!!

I have to constantly turn off and on my VPN to be able to add these and I have spent 2 days to add them! All of them are from official websites and their own social media. What's more legit than someone else's own social media. It's just a message from them to our people. It's not about something political that you want to fact check it with a major mainstream platform!

Please stop it and bring back those, don't let us to abandon Wikipedia... MehdiTaba89 (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I just checked and noticed that you deleted the ones that doesn't have an English Wikipedia page!
So anyone who doesn't have a page in English shouldn't be mentioned anywhere and their stands isn't important!!! MehdiTaba89 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Just because someone posts a sentiment on social media does not mean it should be reported on Wikipedia. To warrant publication, the person making the comment should be notable, and the comment should be reported in a reliable independent source. Someone's self-published comment is not inherently notable. I have no intention of restoring self-published comments on Twitter, Instagram or YouTube. WWGB (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of comment on talk page

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages WWGB (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - I'll just mention that WP:DTR is probably applicable here as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The original messes that I wrote on this talk page was not a template, I just want the edit war to be resolved. CoderThomasB (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Ops, Sorry I met message! CoderThomasB (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Even if the removal was justified by policy that still doesn't explain why you just replied to it and then let it be archived automatically. CoderThomasB (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
If you want to get along on Wikipedia, I suggest you not scold an editor with 16 years experience and 147,000 edits. I am well aware of what an edit war is, and two reversions 30 hours apart hardly constitutes an "edit war". You might like to curb your enthusiasm. I only archive significant comments, the rest go in the bin. WWGB (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
It just seems a bit hostile removing a comment from a new user like me when instead you could have just replied with "I don't think it's got to an edit war yet"
Something along the lines of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers CoderThomasB (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Apology for my behavior

Hello WWGB, I would like to apologize for my behaviour in this thread. It's been quite a long time, but I still think about it and I'm writing this to clear up the situation and any lingering feelings.

There was a dispute over an edit in the Christchurch mosque shooting article. I noticed that there appeared to have been a couple of reversions going back and forth, so I decided to make a comment on the more experienced user's talk page (you), saying that they should probably take the dispute into the article talk page rather than continuing to revert. I mistakenly called this an edit war, but it definitely did not meet the criteria of an edit war. That was my fault. I was expecting a reply, probably something like "Okay, I made a comment on the article talk page". But instead, my comment was deleted. This took me by surprise, so I added another comment asking for the reason for the removal. That comment was also deleted, and the thread listed below is what happened after that:

User talk:WWGB/Archive 1#Removal of comment on talk page

I was wrong in referring to that dispute as an edit war. Looking back, it was not an edit war and I apologize for making that mistake. However, I think the situation could have been solved by simply replying "I don't think this is an edit war yet, I made a comment on the article talk page about it".


Hope that clears things up - CoderThomasB (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mass shootings

You know who this jackass is? I just dropped a range block--it's all pretty pathetic. Sorry you have to deal with this nonsense. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: Yes, this began with the IP insisting that the perp in a mass shooting article had to be identified as Black. I reverted him a couple of times, on the grounds that race was not a factor in the attack. He obviously took umbrage, and has attacked my talk page several times, since he has nothing better to do. Thanks for your assistance and concern. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, I saw that on that talk page--so we're dealing with a silly but persistent disgruntled complainer, not a longterm editor who came out of the woodwork. Well, please let me know if they come back, and we'll see what we can do. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Drmies: Hi, he's ba-ack! See [11]. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks Materialscientist. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, WWGB!

Happy New Year!

WWGB,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for George Pell

An article that been involved with (George Pell) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Name to be decided). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. _MB190417_ (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry...

Sorry I blocked you! I tried to get the IP blocked quickly, and I guess it got too complicated for me. Bishonen | tålk 12:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC).

@Bishonen: That's OK, I understand such things can happen. And thanks for blocking the troll. He has been stalking me for a while using different IP addresses. I do have one request. I have been around Wikipedia since 2006 and have a clean record (no blocks). Is it possible to remove today's snafu ([12]) from the bottom of the block log page? Although it is evident that the block was immediately reversed, I would prefer to keep my unblemished record. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's possible, if you're sure. I've never done it before, but I hope it'll work. Done. I'm very proud of my own block log, for my part! (The block by Jimbo is the star item.) A "clean" block log is uninteresting, IMO. But I've cleaned yours, according to your preference. Bishonen | tålk 12:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC).

January 2023

I am very sorry for what I just did. I know you hate me for what I did, WWGB. I know I have been messing around with researching and investigating throughout this month but as a matter of fact, it's my fault for everything I did. I know you and everyone thinks investigating stuff like this was totally "vandalizing". I doubt that, but I truly discover it from various state outlets. It's not you, it was others as well who totally disregard it because of the restricted rules across the site. I just wanted to say that I apologize for what I have been doing too much. It's always my fault for being how stupid I did, and I am truly stupid at adding information. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

article about Cerelyn J. Davis

Hello, you seem quite experienced here on Wikipedia, and I saw that you edited the page on Tyre Nichols. The related article, about Memphis chief of police Cerelyn J. Davis needs a LOT of work, and honestly might be a BLP violation, but I'm not sure. Could you please take a look, I don't know what to do about it. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Great, thank you for that !! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

I wanted to draw your attention to the widely supported WP:BRD cycle. The nutshell is a great summary: Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change. You're recent edits at Cerelyn J. Davis prompted this note. i.e. please, if your edit gets reverted, feel some onus to start the conversation, not just revert again and put the onus on others. That is the wikipedia norm. CT55555(talk) 23:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@CT55555: Exactly! And you should have followed your own advice! You Boldly added a mirror source [13]. Then I Reverted [14]. That was the B R part done. Next should be D, but you reverted me [15], breaking the BRD cycle. As you wrote, "if your edit gets reverted, feel some onus to start the conversation, not just revert again". WWGB (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I see now that we see the process starting at different times. I didn't think adding a source to something met definition of "bold editing". But I don't care enough to argue that, and I see now that I could be wrong about that also. Clearly you are aware of the essay, which was what I was hoping to achieve here. I'll pause this here as I don't care deeply about having a second source in the article. Peace. CT55555(talk) 01:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Springsteen 2023 tour

I believe you previously reverted an edit to the setlist section of Springsteen and E Street Band 2023 Tour on the basis of excessive detail. The same edit just resurfaced from the same editor and I wanted to suggest it might be better in terms of optics if you reverted it again since I've questioned some of the same individual's other recent edits—I'm concerned about the optics of whether I might be piling on if I revert his latest one. I also think the narrative discussion he added about postponed shows is excessive and unnecessary detail given that there's a summary table further down the article that basically says the same thing, but this particular individual has a history of adding loads of detail to articles (compare to the main Bruce Springsteen article and look at the article history). 1995hoo (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Random thoughts

I appreciate most of your edits and I understand all of them. This is a random, unedited flow of thoughts. The assaults and beatings are not alleged. His death is not alleged. That officers did it is not alleged. Those five officers are accused of doing the final beating & assault, so I feel we have to be careful not to say they did it. You expanded my mind on this. Thank you. Innocent until proven guilty. I have edited this article a lot, but I'm not at all trying to or claiming to own it. There is an editor with ownership, agenda, motive, and editing skill issues. I'm not gonna go there, yet. They also copy paste most of their edits, even for one sentence. I do know that you're not that kind of guy. I do feel that you favor deletion over addition.

I would like to trim the article. Carry on. I know that you edit with good faith, but with a hammer. Reply back, with a ping. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 19:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC) (real name: Wayne)

@WikiWikiWayne: Put simply, my main concern with the article is ensuring its compliance with WP:BLPCRIME. In particular, we cannot say Nichols was killed/murdered by police, as that is sub judice. I am also concerned with, and removed, other erroneous content, like Nichols was beaten before his arrest. Using the term "allegedly" where appropriate does not weaken the article, and avoids a breach of BLPCRIME.

You have violated the 1RR imposed at Killing of Brianna Ghey

You have been warned for breaking the 1 revert rule imposed on Killing of Brianna Ghey that is detailed in the editnotice for that page. Your revert here was your third revert in 24 hours (this and this being first and second). I have logged this warning at the arbitration enforcement log which means you can appeal this warning. If you break 1RR again this may be met with partial blocks. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 10:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Warning struck as 1RR does not seem to apply to the edits made before 1RR was imposed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Join the club

Hi. Because I am retired, I never realised until very recently that you have also been a victim of harassment from Chris Sherlock. Perhaps the community needs to step up its vigilance for such characters - on second thoughts, perhaps not, the victims of such people usually end up with the thin end of the wedge as I and many others have. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Koala

Yeah, thanks - I did an automated word search in the document and my computer couldn't find it. No idea why it failed from a technical standpoint, but definitely my mistake. Anaxial (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Latham

Do you have a source for that full unexpurgated quote? You should know by now that OR is not allowed, and we cannot go further than the RS. Please revert. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Mark Latham Targets Out Gay Sydney MP Alex Greenwich With Vile Homophobic Slur WWGB (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Greenwich

I note you undid my edit on Mark Latham, in which I simply changed "fellow politician" to "teal independent". You said my edit was "nonsense". Please explain? Are you saying Alex Greenwich is not a teal independent? Canberra User (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. WWGB (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

David Henry Breaux

Hey, WWGB! Totally up for discussing this article, I was waffling myself but finally decided the local attention before his death + the widely reported death got him over the hump. What were your thoughts? Valereee (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: I did start an AfD discussion, but I reconsidered. Given that his e-book and the street bench preceded his death, perhaps he gets over the line for notability prior to his death, so more than WP:BLP1E. WWGB (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
That's kind of where I was with it, thanks! Valereee (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Nahel Protests no Wp:RS states its ongoing, its WP:OR to say it is ongoing

Protests suc as Nahel Merzouk protests are not wars like the Thirty Years' War that they have a formal treaty or declaration to have end dates, protests are over the day news reporters say that they have calmed and there are no more Wikipedia:Reliable sources stating that they are ongoing as with the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Protests unlike wars do not have formal declaration and ends after active protests are no longer ongoing and no more sources reports ongoing protests linked to the even. Thus I request you to remove the citation needed tag. I don't want to get in a Wikipedia:EW so will only revert your edit once more, cause no source states its ongoing, but I won't make any further edit if you disagree and I just saw you are a very senior editor since 2006 so I will respect your decision. Good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

No source has been provided to say it has ended either. BTW, I did not add the CN tag. Without a RS saying it is ongoing or ended, then it is just left hanging. WWGB (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

"Killing" of Nahel Merzouk

Are you aware that there has not been due process and no one has been sentenced in this particular case? I don't think Wikipedia should do original research and bypass the legal system in such cases.

I think it would be more objective to use more neutral language and instead present facts that can be cited in reputable sources. IndyCar1020 (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@IndyCar1020: There is nothing accusatory about use of the term "killing", which is just another term for homicide. A killing (or homicide) may be legal or not, depending on the circumstances. A killing in self-defence, in war or by state-sanctioned execution is legal. It is beyond doubt that Merzouk is dead, and that he died at the hands of police. It remains to be seen whether that killing was justified. If appropriate, the title will be changed to "Murder of Nahel Merzouk" if that is the judicial finding. For now, "killing" is the most correct term to describe the circumstances of Merzouk's death. WWGB (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain the revert?

You reverted my edit of "an unanimous" to "a unanimous". Why? I'm not a native speaker so I would be thankful if you could explain. As far as I know "a" changes to "an" if a vowel comes next. Thank you. --JonValkenberg (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@JonValkenberg: It's not that simple. It depends on the sound of the vowel. Unanimous sounds like "you-nanimous" so it is preceded by "a". Just like one might say "a one-dollar bill" and not "an one-dollar bill"; one sounds like "won" and it too is preceded by "a". For further information, see [16]. WWGB (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! JonValkenberg (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Explain the Revert!

hey, you recently reverted my edit in 'Deaths in May 2023' Can you explain why? Faraz Sualeh (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Faraz Sualeh: every deceased must have own Wikipedia article. Mohammad Al Adendani does not have an article. WWGB (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
🤔 I saw several such names who don't have an article and 'Mohammad Al Adendani' is well known among Egyptians and Arabs... That's why I put his name! But anyways no problem ✌️ Faraz Sualeh (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove

Please do not remove my sentence about the initial reports. It is sourced in the Bild article. Thank you. Alexysun (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@WWGB Actually, explain your actions. Alexysun (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing

I see you've posted a "more citations needed" warning on this page regarding my recent edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths_in_December_1989&action=history

I was hoping to add references but I'm not sure how to go about it. Firstly, I'm not sure what count as valid sources, and whether lesser sources can be used if you can't find a good one.

I also don't understand the 'ref' script. I am old and very tech unsavvy, and I just see a mess of symbols when I look at that. And the help pages don't help me because I don't understand the language used. There seems to be no help written in plain English.

Is it a problem if I continue to add unsourced deaths, and leave it for someone else to make it their project to source them? After all, I am taking these straight from the individuals' Wikipedia pages, which include their death dates. Braintic (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@WWGB ? Braintic (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Braintic: Sorry for the delay in replying. Using the simple ref format of these pages, it is easy to add a reference to every death.
The standard format is <ref>[web address of source <space> headline of source]</ref>
For example, Danilo Atienza (died December 1, 1989) has this source in his article: [17]
We add the following to the end of his death entry: <ref>[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-12-11-mn-137-story.html Manila Mourns, Pauses to Reflect : Philippines: ‘Many of us came close to Judgment Day,’ a cleric reminds parishioners in posh Makati district.]</ref>
Try adding a few yourself. It's not hard to do.
It's best you add the reference together with the death entry, otherwise a zealous editor may come along and delete your work as unsourced.
Regards, WWGB (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Simple cites for death pages?

Hi WWGB! Sorry to bother you, but I saw you reverted my edit on "Deaths in November 2019" for ""by consensus, all Deaths in X pages use simple cites". I'm wondering if you have a link to this consensus, please? I tried to look it up but couldn't find it. Thank you! HeyElliott (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@HeyElliott: Please visit Talk:Deaths in 2024 and see FAQ #3 at top of page. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I hope you have a good day! HeyElliott (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

BLPCRIME & NYPOST

Hi WWGB, re the perpetrator's name, note WP:NYPOST and that the BLP policy applies. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Young musical family (Scotland/Australia) has been nominated for renaming

Category:Young musical family (Scotland/Australia) has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Gonnym (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove

Please do not remove my sentence about the initial reports. It is sourced in the Bild article. Thank you. Alexysun (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@WWGB Actually, explain your actions. Alexysun (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@Alexysun:There is no Bild article in the references. If you make an assertion, you need to provide a supporting source. WWGB (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Let me check. Someone must have removed it. Your 2nd sentence was extremely unnecessary. I know that. Alexysun (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@WWGB Okay you are right. Some nasty person must have removed it. Alexysun (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 Apalachee High School Shooting Edit

Hi there. I saw you removed some content in this edit with the stated reason that "it is not usual to name surviving victims". Is there a standard/guide somewhere for this clarification? I've been using the 2012 Chardon High School shooting as a reference, and I went for it because the surviving gunshot victims were all named. Slidinghorn (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Slidinghorn: You are using quite an old article as your "model". Formats and consensus change over time. If you check mass shooting articles in the past 5-10 years, you will see that names of the injured are not included. More recently, consensus now exists to name those killed. Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
@WWGB - I apologize if I came off as somehow accusatory or anything. I was genuinely wondering. I'll look at some more recent stuff today when I have the chance to better get my bearings. Thanks for the info! Slidinghorn (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for the revert - but as far as I know I DIDN'T DELETE ANYTHING! This is as weird as the fact that I'm continually being 'logged-out' despite requesting a year-long log-in. Cheers! Shir-El too 08:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Shir-El too: Here is the diff of your edit. You may not have intended to, but your edit removed sourced material. Most likely an edit conflict with another editor. WWGB (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you again! Cheers! Shir-El too 17:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Swan musical family has been nominated for renaming

Category:Swan musical family has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Elahi Bux Soomro, Daily Pakistan and mechanisms of death

Regarding your reversion of 05:38 today, I'd say this isn't a matter of me knowing better than Daily Pakistan or not. We're just in the businesses of relaying different information. Like all Deaths in 20xx contributors, I've been instructed to add a cause of death (if known). That parenthetical is rather important, as cardiac arrest is not a cause of death, rather a mechanism. Roughly as this forensic guide tells us of cardiopulmonary arrest (same thing, but including lungs), it's only telling us that someone is dead, not why. I'm not asking you to revert yourself or anything, but if you could not restore the other four similar instances after learning this, that'd be cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: We have had these discussions before, and I think we will have to agree to disagree. You have chosen to hang your hat on the Harris County definition, as is your right. There are other descriptions, however, including the following:
Yale Medicine: "Sudden cardiac arrest occurs when the heart stops pumping, and is a leading cause of death in the United States."[18]
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: "Cardiac arrest is a common cause of death." [19]
Johns Hopkins Medicine: "Cardiac arrest can lead to death if there is no treatment within minutes. This condition is one of the largest causes of natural death in the United States." [20]
Anyway, at the end of the day, it's all about "verifiability, not truth", no? WWGB (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
The truth is I keep forgetting which conversations I've had about death stuff went down with which Death Regular and how. I know it was Ref I told last that he was getting cardiac arrest confused with sudden cardiac arrest (SCA). I bet that confuses a lot of people, familiar and not. In the public health/safety sense, SCA is a valid way to label CoDs. I think we're more closely analogous to coroners (or at least their clerks), but admit there's no consensus there and it's totally open to interpretation. In cases of sudden cardiac arrest, I have no issue with you (or anyone) saying so, so long as it's in that whole phrase. There's a fairly noteworthy circumstantial difference between someone suddenly dropping dead and anyone else normally gradually dying, similar results notwithstanding. I think verifiability and truth can coexist. Where they can't, though, yeah, verifiability always wins. Thanks for sharing! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

 

Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi