Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guillaume de Littera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rousset. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danièle Watts until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. —innotata20:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danièle Watts
If you do not immediately redact the multiple accusations of racism you have made at the above AfD, I shall raise the matter at WP:ANI, where I shall call for you to be indefinitely blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I replied at length on the AFD page. I am not accusing anyone at all of racism, but wondering. It sure would look bad for a black actress who acted in a film about African-American slavery and was allegedly handcuffed for being black, to get her page deleted...Zigzig20s (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days (until the end of the AFD you're disrupting) for False accusations of racism against other editors, badgering, disrupting an AFD. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. the panda ₯’22:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Why not just unblock me if I don't comment on Daniele Watts and her proposed deletion? I could simply edit/create other pages totally unrelated to that, and completely ignore those who have harassed me. I have a DYK right now that I'd like to improve at Aqueduc de Roquefavour and a few other articles which are totally unrelated to Watts.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
No, I feel like a victim who has been harassed by unregistered IP addresses and editors who wanted to delete that page, but I would be willing to give up on Watts and those editors entirely to focus on other, more important articles. I am sure that as an administrator, you must have a constructive outlook.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a constructive outlook. But you got blocked for harassing the people who dared to submit their opinion on a deletion discussion. That's unacceptable behaviour anywhere in the world. Nobody should be derided and attacked for commenting on an AFD: ever. It's ok to defend an article using policy-based arguments but it is unacceptable to harass others for making a comment. If you're honestly so thin-skinned that you cannot handle the fact that someone nominated your "work" for deletion, then Wikipedia might not be for you - you appear to have created a tenuous article, which was probably a bad idea to begin with, as the person's "acting" does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and some police activity never should help someone gain notability. If you didn't think that article would go for deletion discussion, then you really don't understand how Wikipedia works the panda ₯’10:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares at this point. I don't think her article should be deleted, but as I said, I won't comment on it any more. I am not sure why the inlined references were removed during the proposed deletion process, including IMDB, but who cares. When you look at the AFD page, you see that other editors agree with me that the page should stay there, while others think it should be deleted, but who cares. Others at the AFD will decide on Watts, although it looks like no consensus has been reached last time I checked. I have been creating and improving pages for years and have had DYK's and I think it would be good if I were not discouraged from editing Wikipedia. I think it may be constructive to let me work on other pages before Tuesday, including adding a gallery to my current DYK at Aqueduc de Roquefavour and expanding Ballets Russes (film), which I watched earlier today. Surely a block should only be imposed to prevent disruptive behaviour on a specific article, not to punish an editor? (No good faith was assumed about me btw, but who cares.) Listed historical monuments and ballet are more important than personality clashes.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, imdb is rather obviously NOT acceptable as a reference - after all, its content is user created as well. See, you need to know the policies before you argue against them. Since you refuse to understand and acknowledge your disruption on the afd, and the inappropriateness of your personal attacks - both of which are requirements for unblock as per wP:GAB, I will not unblock. However,another passing admin might get to this request before it expires. the panda ₯’11:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is widely used throughout Wikipedia, but you are welcome to remove it everywhere. Anyway, can you please explain where you thought there were personal attacks? I said I thought the process of getting her page deleted might be racist since she is black and I am not sure it would be proposed for deletion if she were white, but that I was not accusing any specific editor of being racist at all. Perhaps you misunderstood?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found and read that deletion discussion. Some people were being pretty obnoxious towards Zigzig20s too, and I see an argumentative approach from both sides in some of the exchanges - it does not look 100% one-sided to me. If Zigzig20s was blocked to prevent disruption to the deletion discussion and has now promised to keep away from it, I see no justification for maintaining the block. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why. Have you looked at all the unregistered IP addresses who kept removing inlined referenced info to make the page look weaker during the AFD, pretended I had said she was a main cast member on the wrong show, etc? I am sorry but yes, given the circumstances, I felt harassed. I could lie and say I didn't, but I did. And what does it matter if I don't edit those pages any more? What is the point of the block--to punish me and assume zero good faith towards me, or to keep me from editing a page that I have said I won't edit again?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, if the block was to prevent disruption to the deletion discussion and Zigzig20s has agreed to take no further part in it, then the block is obviously no longer needed - and Zigzig20s's honest feelings about harassment don't change that! Neatsfoot (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Why are you not explaining why? And why weren't the other editors blocked too, for that matter? What is the point in keeping me blocked if I won't edit Watts's page again? Isn't it a loss to Wikipedia if I am kept from adding good content to the article about ballet and other articles? I don't understand your rationale here, since you are not explaining yourself.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to argue either. I would like to understand, however, which will only happen if you explain your rationale. Once you unblock me, I will be worried about getting blocked every time I edit Wikipedia again, because I won't know your rationale in the first place. Given that I have been editing Wikipedia for years, I find it very frightening indeed to be getting no explanation here.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, the editors in the discussion who thought the article should be deleted were conducting themselves appropriately, while your accusation of racism was unacceptable. In this context, I'm not going to unblock you. PhilKnight (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So from your perspective, are you using the block as punishment instead of as a way to prevent disruption (since I won't be editing Watts's pages again)? From your perspective, did you understand that I did not accuse specific editors of possible racism, but thought the process of deleting her page might be since she is black and has portrayed scenes of racism, etc., as I explained on the AFD page? From your perspective, can you please explain why it is constructive to use a block for punishment, while good articles are not created/improved in the mean time?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK. I hope another admin explains/reassures me soon, so that I can understand the rationale. I hope it is objective, not subjective ("from my perspective" sounds potentially subjective to me). And why no good faith towards me? Total mystery. As I said, hopefully another admin will explain and make me want to edit/improve Wikipedia again.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like your block simply expired. Although the notice said the block was for 5 days, if you look at your block log you can see it was in fact only for 60 hours (perhaps the admin thought there were only 12 hours in a day). As for "I see no discussion that could have led to a block", the original discussion has been archived and can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive854 - see 57, "Badgering of contributors, accusations of racism, and canvassing in relation to an AfD discussion" near the end. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But, never once did I accuse any specific editors of racism. I even explained that on the AFD page! It was NOT a personal attack. How was that not clear? Furthermore, once I agreed to censor myself and not edit anything to do with Watts (while others were having a field day removing referenced info, short films, etc.), the admin still refused to unblock me--why?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I don't understand is that, if blocks are not forms of punishment, why not simply ask me to stop editing Watts's page and related pages instead of blocking me? (And then possibly block me if I'd kept editing her page, which would have been fair enough.) I feel very unwelcome now, and I'm not sure I have the heart to work on more articles until I fully understand my rights as an editor.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the key comment was "I am beginning to wonder whether some editors are trying to delete her page and trash it in the mean time out of racism or not. Would this really be proposed for deletion if she were white?" I can understand that was probably just frustration and it's not a direct attack on any specific user, but making general suggestions of racism (or using words that sound like you're making suggestions of racism) is the kind of thing that people do get blocked for. But on the other point, once you agreed not to comment on the deletion discussion or edit the article again, then yes I think you should have been unblocked as the block by then was not preventing anything. That's about all I can suggest, I think - Maybe the blocking admin will comment further to confirm/reject my speculation. Neatsfoot (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it was not a personal attack. The key word here is "WONDER." I was raising a possible concern that I had; we will never know what the unregistered IP addresses who were removing info about her career and adding gossip to her page were, or what their intentions were. Anyway, should I censor my opinions in future? I can certainly do that if you want; having lived in repressive societies, I know how to do that. However, I still wonder, since it was not a personal attack, what the problem was? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The agreement to "censor yourself" merely addressed one half of the reason behind your block. The other was the very clear and obvious violation of WP:NPA - you repeated the accusations of racism multiple times - and as someone of mixed ethnicity myself, people who play the race card when it's pure bullshit diminish the use of it in real situations the panda ₯’10:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where were the 'personal attacks'? They may seem "very clear and obvious" to you, but not to me...at all. I repeat that I never called a specific editor a racist; I don't think there were any personal attacks, at all. AND second, why not unblock me after I agreed to start censoring myself and not edit Watts's page ever again (while others have a field day removing referenced info, half her filmography, during the AFD)? Since I was not going to get involved on the AFD/Watts front any more, how was I not punished with the block? I am not asking you this to be difficult, but to understand. Right now, I don't feel appreciated for my extensive work on Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Random, unsupported suggestions that those who were !voting for "delete" were racists was an attack against those editors - one that nobody should ever be accused of. Because you refused to address that part of the block, you could not be unblocked (basic requirements, as per WP:GAB) which was pointed out to you numerous time. Even if you had recognized that your statements had been inappropriate due to how they could be construed, it would have been better. Finally, blocks are NOT punishment, they're prevention - I've never made a punishment block in my life. While your work is appreciated, you agree to never comment on editors, only edits, and by hanging the spectre of racism over all the editors discussing an article, you attacked the entire group. Of course, I've explained this all before - the answer has not changed, and I will NOT respond to identical questions any further. Oh, and by the way, there WAS a discussion on WP:ANI that led to me being brought into this the panda ₯’12:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that it is fair to wonder if trying to delete the page of a woman whose great-grandparents were probably enslaved and who has acted as "the help" in a film and might have been handcuffed for being black, might hark back to racism or not, yes. But that is an opinion, and I could censor it if you want. It was not directed at specific editors, so I don't think it was a personal attack at all. I was wondering. In the freesociety that I am from, we tell it like we think it is, and don't censor each other. But as I said, I have also lived in places where I had to smile and say what people wanted to hear.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't care about your opinion, especially when it potentially denigrates others. Wikipedia also does not have freedom of speech - it's a private website. The ANI discussion actually agreed with the block for casting aspersions on others. Just don't do it again and you'll never need to go through this the panda ₯’12:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Comatmebro~Come at me~18:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Patent holders
Many thanks for your message on my talk page. No, sincerely I don't think that creating categories for patent holders would be a good idea, at least because this would, in my opinion, not comply with WP:NON-DEFINING and WP:CATDEF. Maintaining such a category would also be a nightmare from a WP:OR point of view. --Edcolins (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tarek El Aissami
I looked into the Venezuelan source: "Su niñez transcurrió en el barrio El Carmen, en El Vigía, recuerda con nostalgia a sus amigos, con quienes jugó pelotica de goma, chapita y su gran pasión: el fútbol, “aún conservo grandes amigos que todavía viven allí”, dice Tareck."
I think it means his chidhood was in El Vigia. It doesn't mean he was born there. I think you can change it. However, at the bottom...
"Perfil: Trayectoria:
Nació el 12 de noviembre de 1974 /Ministro de Relaciones Interiores y Justicia (desde 2008)
El Vigía, estado Mérida / Viceministro de Seguridad Ciudadana (2007 / 2008)"
I don't have the original scan but it's unclear what is meant by "El Vigía". Is it a hometown or are they saying it's a birthplace?
His PSUV page says: "Tareck El Aissami, nació el 12 de noviembre de 1974 en la población El Vigía, estado Mérida, siendo el segundo de cinco hermanos." The Venezuelan political party is saying he was born in Venezuela. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bolton's not currently working with them. I don't think it's necessary to e-mail the US State Department about it. For now we can just say "Venezuelan sources say XXX, Bolton said XXX" and then try to find more and more sources about this. Is there a pre-existing dispute about El Aissami's birthplace? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I meant he was no longer with the State Department! Anyway, perhaps for now it's best to say ABC says WYX and DEF says FGH. It can be further discussed on the article talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting some of your unconstructive edits, where you remove referenced info or add irrelevant content, is not edit-warring. This is just another case of harassment.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Warnings aren't harassment
I was warning you about your potentially disruptive editing. Since it concerns your editing, it belongs here. Warning editors about disruption isn't harassment - in fact, it's an opportunity for you to avoid continuing down that route. Guettarda (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Guettarda: It's not disruptive to disagree with you. It is constructive and collaborative. You don't own the page. I had replied on the article talkpage anyway. Please don't write on my talkpage again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was disruptive to disagree with me. Yet again, you attribute claims to me that I didn't make. That is an explain of disruptive editing. Please read WP:DE. If you don't understand it, please ask an editor you trust to explain it to you in simpler terms. Whatever you do, start abiding by the policy. Guettarda (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Guettarda: OK. You are the editor to whom I ask: what do you regard "disruptive" about my question about WP Human Rights? No one from that WP replied to your question on their talkpage, so it looks like they are not interested in this tag. I'm sorry, but that's a fact.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
March 2015
You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Bill Laurie. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best thing then would be to take issue that to the article's talk page. On another note, I am reporting Marc87 for edit warring at Nancy Walton Laurie because he is continuing to add the category to the St. Louis Blues category there without providing any indication for inclusion in the article. I think the best thing to do would be to allow his edits to stand until this situation is resolved by an administrator. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.
There are at least three obvious reverts on that page; bear in mind that complex reverts, that return a page or a portion of a page to a prior version are still reverts even if you didn't do it via a single edit. This is your second edit-warring warning in two days. Take it as a sign that you need to take a less aggressive approach to editing. Guettarda (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Guettarda: I am not edit-warring. I am trying to have a sensible conversation on the talkpage. Please stop harassing me and be COLLABORATIVE on the talkpage. I still don't know why you think you could add the WP Human Rights to the talkpage if the WP members did not want it there. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at 2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Best, HiDrNick! 21:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:HiDrNick: No, I am not. Can you please do your research and read the specific questions I asked on the talkpage? I am trying to be collaborative because some editors have added content that reads like an attack page on the entire fraternity, instead of a page about a specific incident in a specific chapter at a specific time (perhaps more appropriate at Wikinews btw?).Zigzig20s (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are three reverts: 123 that you have made to this article in the last 24 hours. (A revert is an edit where you undo the contributions of another editor, with a few exceptions.) You areedit warring - that is plain. You are very close to violating the three-revert rule. If you make another revert on this page, any editor may make a report on WP:AN3, where you will almost certainly be blocked. In fact, as long as you persist in believing that you're not edit warring, there's nothing stopping an uninvolved administrator from blocking you for edit warring right now.
I think that many of your contributions to this article have been positive, and I have no desire to see you blocked. If you would like to avoid being blocked, you should stop edit warring immediately. HiDrNick! 22:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:HiDrNick: Did you see the reverts the other editors were doing, and the content they are adding, which is always negative and never balanced? It's not one-sided. There are three editors constantly adding negative content, so obviously they are likely to share their reverts among themselves. To be frank, I have been so harassed that I won't edit that article again tonight. Would I be allowed to suggest a merge, however, or do I need to wait a certain amount of time before you allow me to do it please? I think a merge may solve a lot of problems for this attack page.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, you only need to worry about violating WP:3RR on the article itself. Unless you start undoing other editors' changes to the talk page, it's all good there. You are welcome to add new comments and ideas to the talk page. It's even encouraged; it's what you should usually do instead of reverting!
I understand that it can be frustrating to feel like there are more editors on the other "side" of a content dispute than yours, but you should try to avoid thinking of things in terms of "sides" at all. Assume that every editor that you interact with is trying to improve Wikipedia, just like you are, and things will usually work out well in the end. The article won't get perfect overnight, but it's the give and take of so many editors contributing that makes excellent articles in the end. HiDrNick! 23:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:HiDrNick: 1) Am I allowed to add new content to the article? 2) Can I request a merge? 3) Is there a possibility to request a move to Wikinews as well? I have requested merges before but never Wikinews. Hopefully you can help. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You can almost certainly add new content to the article, so long as it's not something that another editor has already removed. If someone takes something out & you put it back in, that will be counted as a revert. (2) A merge discussion is something that you would start on the talk page, so sure. My advice (and this is just advice) is to wait and see; the story is still developing, and a merge request will probably not go well. (3) I have never heard of a move to Wikinews. There's no technical way to move the history from one project to another, that I'm aware of. It would basically be the same as a merge. HiDrNick! 23:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:HiDrNick: How long does your restriction last? I don't think I want to improve the page until it's lifted, not because I want to edit-war like crazy, but I don't feel comfortable/welcome any more, as I don't want to be walking on eggshells. So I would like to know how long my punishment will last--or is it perpetual? The only way out if this would be a merge, so that it becomes another page, but you seem opposed to it. Or I could write on your talkpage and ask for your permission every time I'd like to add new content. But please let me know how long this will last. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to ask me for permission to do anything; you're not being punished. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than 3 reverts to a single page within 24 hours. Your most recent revert was at 17:44 yesterday, so if you wait until that time today (about 18 hours from now), you'll be fine.
And for the record, I'm not necessarily opposed to a merge, I just think that it's too soon to tell. If this news story died right now, I'd very likely favor a merge. But I think it's too soon to tell. After all, you yourself opined that this might go all the way to the Supreme Court, and if that were to happen, we'd certainly want an article for the event. HiDrNick! 00:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:HiDrNick: To be honest, I feel like I need to take a breather from the harassment, so not editing that page today sounds like a good idea. But I hope more neutral editors come onboard tomorrow/soon. I'm not Joan of Arc.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Institute of Economic Affairs
Hi - I specified on my edit to see the Talk section, where I specified a number of the reasons why there are POV issues, referring to wiki norms. Please reply to the point with the reasons why you feel your amendments are appropriate. Marty jar (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to explain your changes on the talk page of the topic, rather than my board. However the issues I raised were things like why criticism was overwhelmingly painted in a negative light in a way outside of wiki norms, such as why a link describing the think tank as one of the 3 "least transparent" thinktanks was changed to say it was one of the 3 "most discreet"? Please add to the talk board, so other editors can participate.Marty jar (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DRN
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AfD
I was going to tell you that I've never started an AfD - guess I'm too much of an inclusionist. And it is far too advanced a subject for training. Edwardx (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Edwardx: Once I finally found where the three steps were, it was easy. It's just hidden in a maze of contextualizations, which makes it hard to find. I could've learned years ago if it'd not been so buried in other texts. I don't like deleting articles either, but this is clearly an attack page.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - if you spot something like that and the bots and other systems haven't picked up on it, then it falls on you to try to fix it. Editing Wikipedia, one is always learning! Edwardx (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Sigma Alpha Epsilon.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) (Not watching)[reply]
Re: Khalifa Al Kuwari
No, I had no knowledge of who Khalifa Jassim Al Kuwari was until I read your article on Ken Costa. A Google search of the keywords 'Songbird Estate' and 'Khalifa Al Kuwari' reveals his profile on Bloomberg which claims he served as the non executive director of Songbird Estate from 2010 and 2014. Additionally, he apparently has held several distinguished positions in Qatar Investment Authority and Qatar Exchange. He has an impressive résumé in terms of directorships of investment companies, yet, in my brief search, I could not find any reports by major news organizations which mention him bar a Reuters article. Elspamo4 (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They may come from 1913, there are several polo pictures where I can identify the people from the same year. They were taken by a New York City photographer, so they are probably at the Meadow Brook Polo Club or Georgian Court in New Jersey where Jay Gould had a polo field. They may be British since the British polo team were all soldiers.
Captain Thomas playing polo circa 1915H. H. Harrison playing polo circa 1915
Robert Rosen book
i loved it. I have an elderly friend in the Spartanburg Jewish congregation who knows him!
What?Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
When?June 2015
How can you help?
1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
The page was deleted as by a banned user, so I can't restore it, but it wouldn't help you much. There were only two sentences, which just said that she is a French-Lebanese journalist, born 27 Oct 79 in Beirut, and "In late August 2014, she took over from Natacha Polony columnists in the duo in the show is not lying diffuse on France 2." The only reference was this. You're welcome to write an article if you can find more. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zigzig20s. Thanks for your message. I was intending to do it in the next few days, depending on my laptop behaving itself as it's quite a lengthy process. Thanks for your input. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK I think you've done more or less what I did, (some tiny differences) but I did it all in one big edit, which took a while (half an hour or more) and the edits conflicted. Eagleash (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I daresay you're right, but I have no specialised knowledge or information; the article was one sent to me by 'suggest-bot' as one that needed editing/merging. Eagleash (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been once, in a previous incarnation, to investigate an insurance loss. It was typical of that bit of London at the time...In an even earlier incarnation I got to know Waterloo quite well collecting boat parts from the rail parcels office. Eagleash (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Irn (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard about your addition of the phrase "Judea and Samaria" to the article on Yishai Schlissel. As has been explained to you, there is an ArbCom approved guideline that says that in modern times, the phrase should be simply West Bank. Please reply to why you want to make an exception to that guideline, or the dispute resolution thread will be closed as resolved to leave that phrase out. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Judea and Samaria
You wrote: "I would like this discussion to end here as I feel uncomfortable. Please leave me alone." On the one hand, participation in dispute resolution is entirely voluntary, and I can close the thread. However, this discussion is your best opportunity to get the Israeli official name of the police district included. If you don't discuss, you won't get to make your case. I don't know the exact policy on what happens if a participant withdraws from discussion because they feel uncomfortable, but I think that you will be pushing discomfort down the road. They may take "Judea and Samaria" out of the name of the district (although it is its name), and if you revert, we will be right back where we started. Editing the article is voluntary, but complying with Wikipedia guidelines is not voluntary. So please reconsider your request to end the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Massey Rogers until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zigzig20s. You have new messages at Ke4roh's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Fetterman, West Virginia
I have no pictures. I actually passed through the Fetterman location (now absorbed into Grafton) on a railroad hi-rail car about 35 years ago. The information in the article is from the sources quoted. I wrote my contribution to the article a few years ago but I don't remember any pictures in those sources. I wrote the article because of Fetterman's significance to events at the start of the American Civil War, not because I happened to have passed through the location or had any special knowledge. I do remember it because it struck me at the time as the name of a later (1866) Native American/Army battle, the Fetterman Fight, and I remembered it mainly because of that coincidence. Sorry I could be no help with a picture. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Portland and Westmoreland Places confusion
Portland and Westmoreland Places in St. Louis is a historic district, not a single house, see the nomination (some pages unreadable) and map. That makes the redirect resulting from your page move wrong, Portland and Westmoreland Places needs to be an article for the HD, not a redirect to a single contributing property. Also, I don't see anything that makes Orthwein Mansion independently notable such that is deserves its own article.
Unless there is more to Orthwein than is in the article so far, I think the best thing to do is ask for a deletion of Orthwein Mansion as not notable, or you could just ask for a speedy delete as a page built in error; then edit the current redirect into an HD article for Portland and Westmoreland Places and discuss Orthwein there. Generic1139 (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Generic1139: No. Sorry. I will create Orthwein's page later. He was a co-founder of Anheuser-Busch. As a general rule, I don't find articles about historic districts useful at all. In any case, this is an article about the house, to be expanded. Just leave it and add a map to the infobox if you can, that's it. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I was talking at all times about Orthwein Mansion, not Orthwein the person. A person's notability doesn't necessarily transfer to their house, but we'll see what develops. When you are creating articles, if you can add the reference number to the infobox, you won't be adding to the infobox(es) needing cleanup category. Thanks. Generic1139 (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Zigzig. I work a lot with bio articles about U.S. Olympic swimmers, and I saw that you moved this article title from "Bill Orthwein" to "William R. Orthwein." What evidence do you have that the subject was known predominantly as "William R. Orthwein" per WP:COMMONNAME? My Olympic sources all suggest he was known as "Bill Orthwein" at the time of the 1904 Olympics. Please advise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dirtlawyer1: The obituary I added from newspapers.com uses "William R. Orthwein". After he was an Olympic swimmer, he had a full life: he went to law school, became an attorney and a Republican candidate. I will try to find more references/articles to expand the page. I came across his name after working on his son, William R. Orthwein, Jr. (after working on Frank C. Rand). This has led me to work on the Orthwein-Busch connection.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I read your footnote and linked 1955 obituary. Good work connecting the dots. Obituaries typically use full names in the lead, regardless of what the individual was commonly known as. Do we know if he used Bill or William when he ran for lieutenant governor? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper hits aren't everything, but I must say that looks pretty solid to me in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. So, he's William R. Orthwein, nicknamed "Bill" in the infobox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it helps when everyone understands the pertinent guidelines, too, right, Edward? Let me know if you need help anywhere else! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice demonstration of the importance of using an edit summary! At least others are reading my observations, even if the editor concerned is perhaps suffering from projection. Edwardx (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for inviting me to help you with the article, I really feel there is little I can add at the moment, sadly. We're running out of Monegasque topics! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was definitely not my intention to make the edit come off like an ad; but after reading the edit over, I can see how it came off like one! Good call. Thanks. Actionjackson09 (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Broidy's obit
I found Broidy's obituary here, but you need to get the free trial to view it. Apparently he died after a long illness from the search result I found. Trying to find an image. No luck so far, except for an image of Guy Madison labeled as Broidy.
Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Vandy, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Vanderbilt University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!
Hi, regarding your removal of the PROD here, you need to be sure that the articles you create meet either our general notability guideline or our more specific guidelines found through WP:NOTABILITY. In this case, the more specific guideline would be WP:NCORP. The general notability guideline says, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. The three references in the article do nothing to establish the subject's notability. We have a primary source, which fails as "independent", a passing mention (aka, the opposite of "signficant coverage") in what appears to be a Bloomberg directory, and this faceless website, which would not qualify as a reliable source, and still doesn't present any significant coverage. So long as Wikipedia's notability concerns are not addressed, the article will always be at risk for deletion. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zigzig, I just noticed your edit count today, so on the one hand I'm a little bit embarrassed for leaving the notability note above because it's more suitable for a n00b, but on the other hand it's a little confusing that establishing notability wasn't an instinctive first step in writing the Windmill Organics article. I'm not asking for an answer on this. Just an addendum note. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reference which, I deleted and which you reinserted is just a blog and nothing like neutral per BLPs. I will add more references, but this one is off-policy. Please strike it. Irmgard (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Irmgard: Wikipedia is not censored.. It's a third party reference from a prominent organization with useful information. You added a primary source about an obscure legal case which needs clarification.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Equality Matters reliable, but Daily Signal is not??? Both are not neutral, but both have useful information. And Wikipedia is not censored, as you say. Irmgard (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Irmgard: Actually, I thought it was just a random blog. I have just seen that Wikipedia has an article on The Daily Signal. I think you could add it back, but please cite this better by adding the publisher as well, Heritage Foundation, otherwise another user might think it is a random blog. But the source conveniently fails to say whether the children were adopted, which is probably the case if he is gay.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Sinal says his wife is "delivering their second baby" - this is clearly a natural birth. Also he identifies as bisexual per Higher Ed, I replaced this positive statement for the vague statement in Daily Caller. So there is no necessary reason for adoption, in a man-woman marriage the natural start of pregnancy is the normal assumption.
User:Irmgard: The Daily Signal article led to "Page not found", so I removed it. The discriminatory issue is relevant to his career and adding a "controversy" section would not sound encyclopedic. I also added some referenced info you removed... This is not an advertisement, so please don't whitewash his page. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've created many stubs this past month about plantations listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Thank you for your contributions. I do want to mention one piece of advice about these stubs, though. When you create a stub about a place on the NRHP, and you use {{Infobox NRHP}}, if you do not include an NRIS reference number for the site (which can be found in the relevant NRHP county list) in the |refnum= parameter in the infobox, the page is added to the cleanup category Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup. You can see now that many of your articles have ended up in this category. I have added the reference number as well as some other useful information like coordinates to a few of these stubs just now using a tool created by one of the members of WP:NRHP that can be found here. If you type in a reference number for a site, it will generate a full infobox for the site, which you can copy and paste into the new article as a starting point. If you would like to use this tool to add reference numbers and other information to the articles you've created that are in this cleanup category, that would be much appreciated; however, if not, I or someone else from the project will get around to it shortly. In the future when you are creating articles, though, please try to add at least the reference number to the infoboxes of the new articles so that they will not be placed in the cleanup category. Thank you again!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was me. You can find the reference number in several places, the easiest is from the county list that lists all the NRHP items for a county. For example, for William Garrett Plantation, it would be National Register of Historic Places listings in San Augustine County, Texas. Find the entry on that list and find the reference number, it is in parenthesis in the Date Listed column. In this case, it is 77001474. You can then access the elkman tool, [3]. Enter that number in the elkman reference number field and click submit. What you get is the complete infobox. Cut and past that into the article, making corrections as needed, architect or building is one (pick either architect or builder, not both on the same line). The architecture might need corrected. If a location is given, check to see if it needs to be adjusted. Give it a try, I'd be happy to help you learn how to do this. I did it for the 20 or so you added a while ago, I hadn't gotten to your new batch yet. As a plus, you'll often also be getting the maps "for free", and won't need to ask for them on the talk page. Generic1139 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the "NRHP nomination is probably at..." item, the NPS hasn't scanned in everything yet, and Texas is one of the states that hasn't been scanned. You can get details on which state that link will work for on the resource page. For Texas, the Atlas system discussed on the resource has a reasonable success rate, and results in this for Potton-Hayden House. Generic1139 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Generic1139 and User:Dudemanfellabra: I mean the weblink/reference I added is far more useful than the automatically generated "staff" one, which does not link directly to the specific weblink with the relevant information. Not sure if we can fix it. Now, if you're talking about the fact that the National Park Service has not scanned all their PDFs, that is true. I don't know why they don't do it frankly. It wouldn't cost much to hire a few more secretaries--a better investment than wasting time on "entitlement"--but we can't do anything about that. Unless we send them a Wikipedian in residence? (We'd have to find someone based in Washington, D.C., as I think that's where the NPS is based.)Zigzig20s (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for creating article Stone Hall, Nashville. I am going to nominate it for DYK and hopefully it will feature on main page. Currently article has enough length for that purpose, still I request you to expand article by 3-5 lines, that will be better. You can expand it by using existing sources or you can find new sources. I just saw your message on my talk page. You can also fix some issues. I will try to improve article further. Thank you.--Human3015Let It Go12:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a copyright there, but even if there is one it doesn't mean anything. It's a 1901 postcard, so clearly it was published before 1923. (The photo part, not the words on the back). So there's absolutely no problem in using it, even if someone claims copyright. - Nunh-huh08:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
N. S. B. Gras
Hey there. N. S. B. Gras was probably camera shy. Even if I found one it would likely have a copyright. Only photos published before 1923 are public domain. Keep up the great articles and I'm happy to upload photos. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
January 2016
Your recent editing history at Hillary Clinton shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gaijin42: I believe you are misinformed. Can you please explain why you believe I might be "edit warring"? I don't believe that I am. I only reverted the "politician" word in the first sentence of the lead once, not three times. I then proceeded to discuss it at length with the other editors, until I felt there was no consensus for it and discontinued that conversation. The same thing is going with the "net worth" issue, though at least two editors agree with me that this referenced piece of information should remain in her article. Please don't try to intimidate me with idle threats. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are at 5 reverts wtihin 24 hours on the page. that you are reverting on different subjects is irrelevant. Please read WP:3RR. This was not a threat. It was a warning, informing you of a rule so that you did not break it further. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gaijin42: I apologize; I thought it would have to be on the exact same subject. This seems extremely restrictive. My last revert was to remove POV, but next time I will ask for the POV to be removed on the talkpage. In any case, I am not interested in reverting anything further, just reaching consensus with the other editors, as the talkpage makes crystal clear. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not a threat, but as you are now active in this area, you should be aware of the discretionary sanctions in place
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Sorry to disappoint, Zigzig20s, but we have many pictures to choose from and we cannot use every suggested one. I wouldn't say there is something wrong with Latham's picture, but it's a bit grainy and we have quite a few other options with human faces. Next time, if there is a suggested pic that you really like to see on MainPage but it was not chosen for use in DYK, please bring this up to WT:DYK while the hook is still in the prep areas. Sometimes we can move things around to accommodate special requests. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison, Tennessee until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Note that I attempted to give a DS alert concerning your edits on the HRC 2016 campaign Talk page. Stating there are discretionary sanctions on all american political articles post-1932. It showed that another editor already gave this information here in January, 2016. Both events are logged, even though I cancelled mine. Dave Dial (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BLP etc.
Kindly stop talking about Hilary Clinton "barking". She was not barking. Barking is the sound that dogs make, and Hilary Clinton is not a dog. I'm phrasing this in a somewhat stilted manner because I don't want to presume anything about your motivation for your choice of words, but I'm telling you you need to stop talking like that. It took a couple editors and three hours before you found your quotation marks; that's too long. You've been warned, I see, about discretionary sanctions for the broad topic area of American politics, but you're already falling foul of BLP guidelines, as far as I'm concerned, and I will have no hesitation blocking you, or topic-banning you from the area. One more thing: an editor placing a warning on your talk page does not constitute harassment; false claims of harassment, however, do. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drmies: Can you please watch this youtube video? It shows Hillary barking. The title of the video, from CBS, is "Hillary Clinton literally barks at Republicans". I didn't make this up. Please google "Hillary Clinton barking" if you need more references. There have been two campaign ads about this. It is a campaign issue. However, I feel I have been harassed for bringing this up on the talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can feel however you like, but if you think that Googling something makes BLP violations OK, you got another thing coming. Bringing that up on the talk page was not wrong, but the way in which you brought it up was. I've seen the video (I'm not that backward), and I saw where it came from. That means nothing, and adding the word "literally" just makes it more Buzzfeedy. Whoa, I think I just litterally crushed the internet. Seriously, you need to reconsider this, all of this, and you should also consider that we're not the news, we're an encyclopedia. WP:FART makes for insightful reading, IMO. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drmies: The article is about the campaign, which is ongoing, so it is newsy in nature. And we do use the talkpage to discuss content we may want to add to the article; that's the whole point. The barking incident is supported by third-party references in reliable sources like Time Magazine, Business Insider, etc. Are we not allowed to talk about referenced info if it's unflattering? If that is the case, I apologize for being misguided, but I'd rather you explained this instead of threatening me. However, my sense is that Wikipedia is NPOV, not advertising.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drmies: I see you archived the topic from the talkpage. I didn't feel safe editing about it any more, so I don't mind. But I would like to understand your rationale for discussing reliable third-party sources on the talkpage, because this seems very different from anything I have encountered in the past ten years. This is a genuine question.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't read my comments correctly, you shouldn't be editing these articles. I didn't say anything about discussing sources, I said that the way in which you approached the topic was a BLP violation--and I could thrown in that your particular tack seemed to be far from neutral. I'm not even going to repeat what you said, but you're still doing it here. Hint: it starts with quotation marks. Also, I do not understand what you mean with not feeling safe. It's a talk page on a website, where people disagreed with you. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drmies: I don't understand. I would like to understand so that I am never threatened again. I have been editing for a decade, with lots of DYKs and I am in the top 400 most active Wikipedians, so I probably should be editing articles.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You talked about her as if she were really barking. That is not OK. I also note that in the same section you talk about the "secret" transcripts (there are no "secret transcripts", only transcripts that have not been released). "Nobody knows if it was a stress-related incident or a marketing failure" is a ridiculous statement, and maybe Fred Bauder calling you out on it is what you call being "threatened". (Everybody knows what it was: a joke from an earlier event spliced into something else.) You're either being purposely deceitful or blissfully unaware of reality and irony, and if Fred Bauder, Dave Dial, Wikidemon, and Scjessey all agree that you're in serious risk of being censored one way or another, it's probably time to dial it back. Besides, your "sourcing" is just really not up to snuff--you're citing a blog from the WSJ, which is so-so, and some website called "opensecrets.org", which wouldn't even pass muster at DYK. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there ZigZig. Over the past few years I've tried to create articles about all the ghost towns and populated places along the Mississippi River in Mississippi. This map shows much of it. I think I got the last one yesterday with Loch Leven, Mississippi.
I'd like your opinion on something. When I wrote Loch Leven I decided to use the "Infobox Settlement" template, and create the article about a populated place in Wilkinson County (and not just a plantation with a history). The advantage to creating it as a populated place is that the article get more traffic because it can be linked from the county article and county template. Also, Loch Leven has it's own GNIS listing as a populated place, and had many characteristics of a settlement (a post office, church, cemetery).
I'm wondering if your article about the Leota Plantation could be merged into the article about Leota, Mississippi? I don't have a location for the Leota Plantation, but it's likely at or near Leota. If you think it needs a stand-alone article I totally understand, in which case I'll just link the two articles. Let me know. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Magnolia677: I think both pages could be expanded independently. I've taken a break from editing about Mississippi for now, but I'll get back to it later. Btw, if you can think of an editor who could take pictures of the remaining cemetery, that would be great. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.
This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Aside from Chesky, this brilliant, totally accurate, definitive list of Jews also includes (non-Jews) Samantha Power and Reid Hoffman. Are you saying we should list Irish Catholic Irishwoman Samantha Power as Jewish also just because she's on this list? Then start with her page. Dohodho (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsensical rant
So it's "nonsensical" to say that the "source" lists Samantha Power and Reid Hoffman's names next to Chesky's? Why are those two wrong and this one is right? How many errors does that page have to make before it becomes unreliable? Give me the number. I want the number of errors that page has to make before it becomes unreliable. Tell me that number. BTW, it doesn't even strictly speaking call any of them Jewish. Now why don't you go to Power's page and change religion from "Roman Catholic" to "Judaism". Brian Cheksy is the grandson of Harry A. Chesky and Gladys Dylewicz, who were Polish Catholics, and of Nicholas H. Campese and Anne L. Campana, who were Italian Catholics. There's only one outcome to this, and that is Chesky not being listed as Jewish (unless he converts some day, of course). That's the only way this ends. Do you really want to waste your time delaying the inevitable? Dohodho (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted the edits on the ground that it was speculative. Whilst I disagree (as the source said that the Trump campaign and publisher were asked to confirm if money had been donated and couldn't), I understand how, debatably, it could be considered such. However, if my edit was speculative, I would argue that the statement "All proceeds from the book will be donated to charity" is also speculative by its self, and should also be removed. I'd be interested in your opinion on this. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really...: It is debatable. The problem with your addition is that it sounds polemical and potentially libellous (not your fault, but the third-party sources). I think the article should be expanded with more content about the book. I am reading it at the moment, but I am not sure how much I could add from my own notes...usually I try to flesh out articles about books with book reviews, but I haven't found many that we could use. There's one in The Washington Times, but that's seen as too partisan. Want to help with this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly at a later date, though I don't normally work on book articles. Currently I am super busy with the Wiki Loves Pride campaign. Are you aware of any editors who are interested in working on book and/or Trump and/or political articles? ---Another Believer(Talk)02:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I have been hated for my creating short NRHP stub articles, and I am sympathetic to editors wanting to create short stubs if they want to. On one level perhaps it is better for me. But hey, this creation of Roseland (Ferriday, Louisiana), is really minimal! (I happen to be seeing multiple creations like this because they link to a page I created, so I get notices.) And, I find it misleading. In the edit summary you assert you have created a referenced stub, and in the article you give a link to a NRHP nomination document with your reporting you accessed it on July 18, 2016. But you did not access it, there is no nomination document there, right? So it seems false, and misleading to local editors who may arrive later and believe that there once was a source available there. I don't think this is right, and I sort of think you should return to any like this and strike the "accessdate" and give an edit summary that is clear about this.
Or do you have the documents in hand somehow, and are you going to develop them, or what am I not getting? Cheers, --doncram00:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:doncram: I accessed the weblink on that date. Otherwise I would cite the PDF, not the weblink. I'd like to expand each stub with more references, or encourage others to do it if they can find the right books. I'm working on John Perkins (planter) and he may have owned some of those plantations. As always on Wikipedia, this is a work in progress...Zigzig20s (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We could create it if there are sufficient sources. It does not necessarily have to be listed. Sometimes, plantations were razed and built upon, or simply abandoned. I'm not sure why UNC does this--it looks like censorship.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thanks for your quick reply. I get that it can be useful to work on multiple related pages at once, and find that sources on one work for the other, etc. That has worked for me when working on articles about architects or sites linked by having the same architect. (I just checked and there are no John Perkins showing up in the NRIS architects/builders/engineers field for any NRHP places, unfortunately.) But this is not yet showing any promise, you are not turning up any MPS documents or any other sources this way, AFAICT.
Quick Q1: Did you really access the weblink, i mean is it really your source to say the building was built in 1842, or is your source NRIS from the infobox generator? (If the latter, I think that should be credited as the source...) Q2: And you do know that the significant date might not be a built date, right? It could be some other kind of significant date, like the date a cemetery on the site was started. Q3: And I have wondered, about what shows on NPS weblink, does "Date Published: 10/10/1985" always mean the place was registered on that date? --doncram00:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whenever I cite a weblink, I visit/double-check it first. The Elkman reference does not lead to the correct weblink for some reason. I just leave it there because it comes with the tool, which is useful for the infobox (especially for the map).Zigzig20s (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... By the way I almost started editing a batch of old stub Louisiana articles today, but chose not to because NRHP documents seem not available for the sample few I searched for, so I refocused onto another state instead. --doncram00:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In poorer states like Louisiana or Mississippi, there isn't always all the information we need online, but I think that is exactly why we need to create stubs and hopefully encourage residents to expand those pages by visiting their local libraries and finding the right books to cite. I wish the Wikipedia Foundation did more to encourage everyone to take an interest in their local histories, by providing free photography courses for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you assessed this article as "start" class. That is, an article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources. Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Surely it is not all that bad. What most needs fixing? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aymatth2: Thanks for your note. The article looks good--it could probably be reassessed to C. I added two WikiProjects to its talkpage as there were none, but I am not particularly interested in this topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand. Possibly in future it would be better to add the project templates but leave the assessment blank if you have not in fact reviewed the article. The reason is that once assessed an article is rarely reassessed, and the C or B class ones are much more likely to draw attention from editors looking for a promising article that they can improve. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I searched some different Louisiana newspapers for his obituaries but didn't find anything. I found this pdf on LSU's website that you included in the article. It's kind of annoying that it has his birthday but not his death date. I searched on the Louisiana House of Representatives member history and found him on this pdf under Ascension Parish 1912, though it doesn't have his birth or death dates so it's not too useful. I searched him on another database (here), though didn't find his birth or death date either. I searched for history of him as mayor of Donaldsonville, LA in hopes of finding a death date, though couldn't find anything. I don't really know where else I could go from here, though I can try to look deeper in a few days when everyone here is less busy as there is a lot of work after the floods in the community. Sorry I couldn't find anything yet. Williamcasey (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your characterization that it was vandalism, but since you see it that way, I will assume you will view my revert as the first good faith revert to start the BRD process, and look forward to other eds views in the thread you start, if any, at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
Hi Zigzig20s! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ira A. Lipman until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.
I do want to apologize if my AfDs or comments made you less motivated to contribute. Having written 1000+ articles myself and having experienced the annoyance of seeing them at AfD, I do realize very well that we put a lot of effort into volunteering here, and hearing criticism more often then praise is discouraging. Please understand, however, that in light of this project drawing in SPAM (IMHO, at least), and with numerous incidents of editors not disclosing their PAID/COI interests, when one sees a series of articles that look like they would be the work of a PR agency, a more serious look is needed. It is not harassment by any means, it is simply the usual wiki "check someone else works for potential problems" approach. AfD is after all a discussion, and if you convince me and the community that those articles are notable, my hat is off to you. There is nothing bad with honest, AGF discussion. I will again repeat that I think you are doing a lot of good work here, but in the spirit of ensuring our policies like WP:N are followed, please understand that occasionally some of our contributions (mine as well as yours) have to be scrutinized, because even good-faith, experienced editors like ourselves can make some mistakes. I hope this clears my motives a little. Once again, thank you for your hard work and please treat any of my criticism as good-faithed, not ill-intended. Cheers,
The Joanne Grant article that I deleted consisted entirely of the following: "joanne grant is awesome and thats that!!". Feel free to start a new article on a (presumably) different Joanne Grant. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit, "It's the first one EVER!", what does that matter? Why is a parade, of which there can be many in any town annually, notable? Should we note the first MTSU Homecoming parade, the first city Christmas parade? How many other little firsts have there been in the city's history? Of course not, because they are generally not notable. I know of nothing that sets the pride parade itself as specifically notable, either. — Huntster (t@c)16:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What? That's a nonsense reason, especially for an article section dealing with broad swaths of a city's history. It is not notable in its own regard, other than simply for occurring. — Huntster (t@c)16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean here. BoroPride was privately organized, not by the city. I don't know of an instance in the past where the city denied a permit for such an event, nor am I aware of an effort in previous years to hold such an event (though I could be wrong!), so its not like the city had been suppressing it. As one of the organizers put it: "we just thought it was time to do it here". — Huntster (t@c)16:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Finally safe"? Pride events have been held locally in the past, just not at this scale, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Again, none of the above necessarily imparts notability. — Huntster (t@c)16:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's Tennessee. Hate crime statistics are high. Why do you not think this is notable for the history section, if it's the inaugural parade?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, the parade in and of itself is not that notable. It makes even less sense to include it in the section you did, given its *broad* historical nature, rather than involving specific smaller events. — Huntster (t@c)17:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You had asked me if I knew of Mormons helping in the wake of the flooding. Per this article [4] about 6,500 have with 5,000 more potentially coming. It does not give any indication of where those involved came from. However knowing various factors, my guess is that most have come from Texas, with aid from those in unaffected parts of Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi also significant. However the number of Mormons in Texas is much greater than any of these other states, actually greater than those 4 other states combined. While West Texas has significant numbers of Mormons, The Dallans to Houston corridor is where most in the state are, and the most heavily Mormon area in Texas is the east Texas town of Gilmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Greif until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.
Hi, I just have seen on related changes that you are active user. Do you can make a copyedit in Paper soccer ? I am not a native English spoeaker and it is difficult to me to correct it article better. regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.CFredkin (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All that doesn't matter. The allegation that was being inserted by the sockpuppets was fallacious, and so was a biographies of living persons violation, and, because it was being done in bad faith, it was vandalism. However, they have been blocked for being sockpuppets, which is even quicker than the blocking of vandals. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me what to do about vandalism. However, the answer wasn't in dealing with vandalism. The answer had to do with what to do about sockpuppetry. BLP violations take a while to deal with. Vandalism is quicker. Sockpuppetry, in blatant cases, is even quicker. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't always have to have the last word. You should not be arguing about a completely different topic and you should be source digging on the discussion we had yesterday, and the fact that you aren't implies that you may be here more to argue than to actually improve the encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood21:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Timothyjosephwood: I have had a busy day offline. I will look for sources about the speeches but right now I'd rather finish reading a book. You--and anyone else--are also welcome to look for such sources in the mean time.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was offline all day. If you have a content-related suggestion based on reliable third-party sources, please let me know, otherwise there is no need to talk to me. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windmill Organics until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I saw you requested photos for several Israeli places. There are already images of several of them on commons - the best way to find them is to go to the Hebrew article via the interwiki links and then click through to the pictures to see if they are on commons. Cheers, Number5719:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Number 57: Thanks. I love Israel and I wish we could improve/expand all relevant articles. With the reqphoto tag on the talkpage, I am suggesting we add a picture, which could mean finding it on Wikimedia Commons or taking it, depending on what's available.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Launchballer12:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A speedy deletion notice had been placed on Mieke Telkamp. That notice stated (in bold) "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself". Could you please revert your last two edits. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Magnolia677: I don't know how I could revert it because I made another edit--I added a lot of content, which shows she is notable. She also has articles in multiple other languages. This is a waste of time, isn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I didn't realize it was you. I've seen a few other ZigZig's. I'm surprised to see the speedy delete on one of your articles. You're a an excellent and very detailed editor. I think the article needs a bit more work before it goes live. Let me see if I can help. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I created a referenced stub when I saw a red link on the "recent death" list. I am not particularly interested in this woman, but I thought I could encourage other editors to expand/improve the article on the English Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Magnolia677: So actually there is a method to what I'm doing: I've been trying to add more non-US "Recent Deaths" to the mainpage. But oftentimes the sources are in a foreign language and I think it's worth letting other editors who are able to read and research those sources expand said articles.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added another source that supports parts of the article. I used Google translate. She appears to have been a very popular performer. Maybe a Dutch-speaking editor could fill in the blanks. All the best. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
