Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

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

I occasionally delete infoboxes from articles I have edited if the infobox in question is almost empty or otherwise of little or no utility, based on the following from WP:MOS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)): “The most important group to consider are the casual readers of Wikipedia, who will never do any significant editing. Infobox templates that contain many blank fields, question marks” and “Unknowns present an unprofessional appearance, diminishing Wikipedia’s reputation as a high-quality encyclopedia.” Quis separabit? 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Happy New Year, and thanks for tweaking the passage in the Todd Beamer article. However, you added material without accompanying it with a cited source. As I'm sure you know, material added to articles needs to be sourced per WP:V and WP:NOR. Please do not add such material without sources. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I removed the portion of the article you restored simply to shorten the article and that seemed relatively less important than the rest of the article (I had actually added it originally as well); there was some discussion on the talk page about the article being too long; however, if you think it should stay, that's OK with me. :) 331dot (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has received agreement so far, presumably because it is relatively uncontroversial to wish to restore a sense of balance in the article. As it stands, the entire contents of the US-specific pages has been copied over on to the main page. Would you not agree that, on 'a priori' grounds, this is unacceptable as every notable event in the US surely does not, by some axiom, become automatically internationally notable. This includes events like the opening of theatres, weather events, sporting victories, commemorations and so on. Clearly these things happen elsewhere in the world and if that was grounds for inclusion the page would be swamped. Rather the only sensible option would seem to be to maintain an impartial standard of notability regardless of country. An event has to be of particular historical importance. For example, Germany reoccupies the Rhineland=notable, rodeo opened in Mississipi=non-notable. Could you please explain what your objection is to this? People can disagree over particular events as it is, to a degree, subjective, but reverting the whole thing surely not constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodleki (talk • contribs) 14:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Robert! Thanks for the note on my talk page. I've gone ahead and blocked that editor as he's been combative and disruptive on other articles too, refuses to engage, and has been edit-warring past 3RR. He'll be back in about 31 hours. However, while you've been calm and collegiate and tried to reach out to the guy, you did just go over 3RR yourself on that article. Given what's been going on, that you reached out for help, and given that it's arguably reverting 'obvious vandalism', I'm not going to block at this time. But watch out for 3RR in future - you know the rules better than anyone else here! Best regards - Alison ^❤ 01:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ...these things happen. Truth be known it kind of livened up my day –Kiwipat (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Robert! I found some more info regarding her, including a lot of things I'm sure no one knew about. Therefore, I think we should nominate her for a DYK using the entry I put at her talk page. I've done a lot of DYKs this week and she would most certainly fit, once you get to the end of her mention. — Wyliepedia 06:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hey Rms125a@hotmail.com; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You added a neutrality banner to Robert James Carlson on June 14, 2011. There's little of note on its Talk page. Can you explain the POV problem? Is it just the paragraph re Saint Stanislaus Kostka Church, under "Views"? Thx. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"to get a green card you must be eligible to naturalize according to my (possibly erroneous) understanding of American immigration law" — I thought so too, but I guess with a private bill they can do whatever they want even if it doesn't accord with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. I'd imagine she eventually renaturalised, but I'm not 100% sure. The best I've been able to find is a 1981 article which said she still hadn't got her citizenship back [1]. Other people who renounced but then later immigrated to the US again have also reported difficulty qualifying for naturalisation, e.g. [2]. Cheers, quant18 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

More vandalism here from VictorDiaz619. Added Level 3 vandalism warning to user's talk page. Thought you might wish to be notified.Levdr1lostpassword/talk 00:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that Ancestry.com was the final authority on the truth of personal information about people, including celebrities. Innumerable web sites and almanacs state that Audrey Meadows was born in WuChang, China. Does Ancestry.com automatically trump all other information sources? Is Ancestry.com infallible? I think not.

Also, Ancestry.com and Wikipedia state that Meadows was born in 1922. If you click on her Find A Grave link, you will see that her gravesite is inscribed with the year 1926.

We all know that hearsay can be highly unreliable and inaccurate. The ONLY person who can positively verify Audrey Meadows' place of birth and year of birth is Audrey's mother. If Audrey herself had told you that she was born in New York City, the statement would be hearsay.

New York City vs. WuChang, China and 1922 vs. 1926. How do you know when you have the truth? That can be a difficult question to answer.

Anthony22 (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I was notified by Kendall-K1 that should bring the topic over at your talk page. However, I just wish to answer your question on why think that Kath Soucie was not born in 1967. Due to the fact that have in my hand the tape (its on video, not DVD) of The Incredible Journey of Doctor Meg Laurel, where Soucie plays Becca, (which btw she mentions in an interview for Tim Lawson and Alisa Persons' book) where she is clearly over 20. The television movie was released as a part of those movie-of-the-week television marathons in January 1979, therefore it was shot in 1978. That is all wish to say, nothing more. Radiohist (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

No probs. Iim game and done with that if you are?(Lihaas (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).[reply]