Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

Click on Los Angeles, California and tell me where you go. We are not to intentionally add links to redirect BTW. Also, please tell me where in WP:MOS it talks about allowing redirects. I'm not watching this page so leave {{talkback}} on my page if you want me to respond. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'd like to thank you for your edits, especially for rewriting some text and adding the necessary tags in Armenia-related articles that help me and other users to see the main problems those articles have and try to fix them. If you have anything to say about my edits (positive or negative, doesn't matter) please don't hesitate, leave a note on my talk page. I'm here to work with everyone who is willing to work. Thanks! --Երևանցի ^talk 19:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

DNFTT ;)

--Vituzzu (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am astonished to see that I am accused of being a sockpuppet and blocked. I am even outraged because I feel humiliated with this accusation. An accusation of being "user Brunodam" without proof, even if I offered to submit my personal data. I demand justice. I am going to complain to the "Better Business Bureau of Florida" and to the Police department of Fort Lauderdale, following instructions from my attorney about this clear case of harassment & offense. I will ask for damages. Junior5 This is what I wrote last July 2013 on my defense (quickly erased by the italian wikipedia "mafia leader" Vituzzu on that archive) about the accusation of being a vandal: I AM NOT THAT PERSON! and I will show evidences and proofs of this to a judge. M.R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.92.226.201 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answered, ty. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Your October edits to Earle Page were very careless and have created all sorts of problems. You have confused Earle and his son Earle Charles and removed the subjects bio details and left his sons bio details. Please make corrections to repair this. Castlemate (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I realise this was a long time ago, but regarding this edit - where did you get the idea that Pyne was the second-youngest MP ever? When he was elected, he was the tenth youngest MP (ahead of him: Edwin Corboy, Andrew Jones, Charles Frazer, Peter Shack, Bill Falkinder, Bert Lazzarini, Christian Zahra, Gary Punch and Malcolm Fraser himself). I saw this repeated in the SMH today and was shocked to find they'd got it from us! I only ask because if it came from a source, I may need to dig up another source to correct it (rather than my own maths). Pyne doesn't claim this himself, does he?? Frickeg (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC) (Edit: he was, of course, elected before Zahra was, so the ninth youngest. The point still stands, though.) Frickeg (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is a mirror of yesterday's SMH article; the second just states that he was the youngest MP at the time of his election. Frickeg (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits and attention! I will follow up on cn tags later this week. About your additions to the lede & personbox, I wanted to run my thoughts by you before any rv. I think Miller's engineering career and inventorship adds useful detail to the article body, but I don't believe he is sufficiently notable in those fields to merit attention in the lede & personbox. Happy holidays! Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing or reverting your recent tweak, but I'm trying to understand what you have in mind so I can do better next time. I am planning a future edit in a few days, in which I'll move all of the refs (making them list-defined refs) for easier maintenance. Earlier today, I went through all refs in the article to make all date formats consistent, according to one of the acceptable WP:DATEFORMAT choices (#4 in the table). You then tweaked some refs to spell out the month, which of course isn't wrong but introduced an inconsistency. So basically, I'm trying to square your edits with the guidelines in WP:CITEVAR which suggest that internal consistency is important, and we should generally leave well enough alone, rather than impose our style preferences on other editors. Please understand that I'm perfectly OK with generally adopting your style preferences, in order to avoid any inconsistency or conflict over minor matters of style. I just want to be sure I understand what your edits are directed toward, so I can stay consistent. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for what you do for Wikipedia. Happy New Year!RFD (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your excellent contributions to many articles on Wikipedia!!! gidonb (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you for your kind words. The process is more important than the outcome. It's by taking part that we improve our debating skills :) Note I have no dog in this fight. I have not created the article, nor did I make a single contribution to it. I'm doing it more for my sense of what Wikipedia should be than for this particular article. I'd like to point to you that your signature only gives a link to your user page. If you've thought about it and this is how you want it then ok, but I thought I'd mention it because seem to prefer to receive messages on your talk page. You're more likely to never have people touch your user page if you change your signature a little bit. Contact Basemetal here 13:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is a cabal at Hanged, Drawn and Quartered who refuses inclusion of the following template there: Template:Capital Punishment I think the template is very illuminative, and should be de rigeur at execution pages. What do you think?Arildnordby (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you say he was named Gomes and not Gomez, but the source write it with a "z". Christian75 (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Paco and Pepe de Lucía's mother, Lucia Gomes, was Portuguese and her surname was Gomes, not Gómez. Evidently I missed something when I was corrected the surname. Thanks.

Yours, Quis separabit? 00:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you for your copyediting at El Chapo's page and for your interest in the article. I will be working on the page for the next few weeks, and I plan to promote it to Good Article status sometime before the summer (I have a week off school next week—Spring Break—so I'll probably get most of the editing done by then). If you're interested, feel free to pitch in whenever you feel like doing so. Happy editing, and thanks again. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 06:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rms125a@hotmail.com. With regard to the Anne Heche article, I can't yet decipher all of what you changed; I'm sure I'll disagree with your definition of "promotion" in this case once I do decipher all of it (though I likely won't revert/raise the matter as an issue). But, with regard to using italics for the entire quotes, that violates WP:Italics (which has a Quotations subsection in addition to the other subsections it has, such as with regard to what is appropriate emphasis). Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you reply to me about this, I'd prefer that you reply here at your talk page so that the discussion is kept in one place. Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note: Regarding this, be careful with the word claim; I usually remove that word (plural or not), per WP:CLAIM. The only reason that I did not remove it from the gay father bit (which was there before your edits to that section today) is because Heche is making a serious/heavy claim about a person. But for Heche stating that she was "insane for the first 31 years of her life," the word claims absolutely should not be used. Regarding the messages you left on my talk page, blockquotes are not much better because, per WP:Blockquote, quotes should be a certain length (the length WP:Blockquote specifies) before being put into blockquote. And too many blockquotes can give an article a messy look. As for having split this discussion because you were late to getting my second message above, no worries; I will simply post a WP:Permalink (a second if required) of this discussion there, which will show the complete discussion. I was able to deduce, from seeing your talk page, that you split discussions; that is what propelled to me to request that you don't split this one. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22: Oh, good. I don't know how to do Permalinks and stuff like that. No excuses, just never learned. Too lazy, old dog, new tricks, etc. Although I must point out that I wasn't exactly "late to getting my second message above"; if anything I guess I responded too quickly to your first message! Funny, that!
 ::: Thanks for the advice re WP:CLAIM. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For documentation, in case you or anyone else reading this section wants quick access to the full discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slowly getting through the backlog for Wikiproject Cities unassessed articles. I'm sure that I'll clear a few more of those Louisiana ones for you, shortly. I'm glad that somebody is showing the love. All the best, EP111 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert for developing this crucial page that was incredibly visited by 222,000 viewers just yesterday... http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/L%27Wren_Scott It needed a great revamp though and adding of missing pieces, like her previous marriage, circumstances of her suicide and financial status of her businesses which I now have reworked. Plus some more controversial matters like her name. By the way, I never heard of the name of this designer until today, but somehow her life fascinated me as I made further research on her life and career. So sad though about her fate. werldwayd (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Actually, redlinks are sometimes perfectly fine. If you follow that guideline, should an article be made on that movie then the link would become a normal wikilink. It is certainly not unreasonable for an article to be made on... on that... topi... top... oh no... I have a sudden compulsion to make that article. /sigh. Why do I do these things to myself.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 18:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• oi, developing the plot was painful--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that Jack Little was one of two non-Catholics in the ALP (anti-Communist), the original name of the DLP, in the Victorian Parliament, whereas previously it was stated that he was the only one. He was the only non-Catholic. The other non-Catholic parliamentarian was Robert Joshua, the House of Representatives Member for Ballarat, and the leader of the ALP (anti-Communist) in the federal parliament. Joshua was never a member of the Victorian Parliament. The original comment was correct, and should be changed back, or at least qualified with a reference to Joshua's membership of the federal parliament.Noreen45 (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your gratefulness. OccultZone (Talk) 04:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Charles Keating is a GA article with an active maintainer (me). Please do not remove deadlink sources just because they are no longer immediately accessible. Please see Wikipedia:DEADLINK#Mitigating_a_dead_link: "Do not delete a URL just because it has been tagged with ^{[dead link]} for a long time." Statements like "Keating graduated from St. Xavier in 1941.[4]" should not be replace with "citeneeded" flags just because the URL no longer works. Statements like these are still adequately sourced, it's just harder to get at the source. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment "I was just trimming in light of Keating's recent death". Just because the subject died doesn't mean the article has to be shortened. The diffs of your edits are very difficult to follow (that's the fault of WP software, not you). Can you tell me what you think is wrong with the article in terms of content? I see comments like "POV", "OR", "cruft" - what exactly? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored the deadlink I removed. As far as POV, I would say terms like "Indeed" (not in quotes), or "well known", rather than just "known", depending on the circumstances. Stuff like that. Why don't you compare the diffs and see if the article doesn't look a tad better. If not tell me where I screwed up. Yours, Quis separabit? 02:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to put "ISBN needed" on all the short form book cites; its in the long form in each book's first cite. (Better would be to move those books into a bibliography section.) You have eliminated what you think are redundant cites but they are actually needed for me to tell what text goes with what cite. You've put all the quotes in italics; what MoS guideline says to do that? You've taken the life out of some of the wording: "In late 1988, Keating began desperate attempts to sell Lincoln" is based on sources and conveys to the reader much better the feeling of what was happening than "In late 1988, Keating began attempts to sell Lincoln". If the source says it was desperate, why can't we say it was desperate? That's not "POV", that's engaging prose, what articles are supposed to aspire to. And most of what you've changed I won't even be able to figure out without doing a side-by-side walkthrough of the formatted articles before and after - parts of that big diff are completely unmanageable. Sigh. You don't know how many hours I spent researching and writing this one. What can I say. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't want to revert all your edits. I just want a change to the culture here where every article is automatically considered unsatisfactory and unmaintained, in need of cleaning up, rearranging, reformatting, cruft removal, etc, all in sweeping edits with little explanation. And that whenever the subject is in the news it's open season on the article. Some articles are actually pretty good and had people work really hard to make them that way. I've been here a long time and of course I know that in WP you get no credit for work done and no credit for knowing a lot about the subject and no credit for having thought a long time about the article and that everything can be redone by others. But still. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Just because! :) You've been here years now, through good times and through tough times. Anyways - just dropping by to say that I appreciate that you're still here, doing what you do! Alison ❤ 20:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A heading has been placed above the DLP (historical) article claiming that ISBN numbers should be included for some references. There were no ISBN numbers shown on books before somewhere about 1970. The books shown in the references by Tom Truman and Alan Dalziel I think do not have ISBN numbers shown inside their covers because they were published earlier than 1970. An editor with a keen interest on Hungarian-Australians has inserted reference numbers from the National Library of Australia for some books without ISBN numbers. Perhaps I could do this?

Also two very important references seem to have been removed. These are the book by Paul Reynolds with the title Democratic Labor Party and the book by Robert Murray on The Split. I can restore these later when I'm up to it, as I have been ill lately following surgery. Thank you for your comment on my talk page. You do very good work for WP.Noreen45 (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the contributions you made to the David L Cook article. Please contact a contributing editor before you simply start hacking at an article. The sources and the whens and whys are described in the sources that were given. If there is not a source in the location you placed, it was down at the end of the paragraph. If you want to make edits or you have questions I would appreciate that in the future you contact a contributing editor before simply taking those kinds of steps. I understand being bold in your edits, but the ones you made were not helping to improve the article. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments on my talk page. Canyouhearmenow 18:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help on this article. We must always be courteous and respectful of each others work. The edits you currently made are very respectable and appreciated. I hope that if I can ever help you in the future you will feel free to call upon me.Canyouhearmenow 22:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed Lars Lindstrom from a redirect to a DAB, since there are two characters with that name. I also commented out the categories that the page had been placed in. Since they only apply to one of the two characters, I was not sure if they should be removed or if additional categories should be added for the other character. Anyway, since you recently created the redirect page and have done a lot of category editing, I thought you might have a better sense of what to do about this page, so I thought it would be worth bringing it to your attention. If you get a chance, you might want to check it out. Thanks. 99.192.76.145 (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that you reverted two "unsourced claims" on the Colin Ferguson page, including an edit I made. Please be more careful in the future; the "unsourced claim" I made regarding Ferguson's role as the Maytag Repairman was actually sourced later in the article, and both his Maytag role and his activity as an NHL.com blogger were easily verifiable by a quick web search. Rather than removing such claims, which makes another editor go back and re-add the material, why not simply leave a "citation needed" tag, allowing the rest of the Wikipedia community to source the material? For that matter, why not take an extra few seconds and reference them yourself? Just my two cents. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! You've been moving a lot of royalty articles to non-standard names, etc. Some of these names are not prescribed by the naming convention on royalty, located at WP:NCROY. Would you please start some discussions moving forward? Although the changes may seem non-controversial, I think it would only be a matter of time before a good chunk of them are reverted. Thanks! Seven Letters 01:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. When you say "not prescribed", does that also mean "not proscribed"? As you say, they are not particularly controversial, and some are reverts of prior edits I made that I later reconsidered. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of copying your reply on page over to here. I hope you don't mind. They are not proscribed but the editors have generally seen that the titling follows the guidelines as closely as possible. For the most part, marital titles have not been included in the article titles of princesses unless needed for disambiguation. Also, generally, we don't include the house names (except for some French royals) were they differ from the actual titles used (for instance, using Bourbon when someone is "of Spain"). I reverted one article back to Jaime, Duke of Madrid and have looked over the others. They look okay but I have placed a comment on the talk page for Princess Julia of Battenberg. Stylistic changes to the names usually warrant discussion because the editors who came to consensus on WP:NCROY indicate that some name forms imply certain things about the article subject (whether they were sovereign, a consort, a junior member of a house, etc). Clear as mud but I hope it helps going forward. Seven Letters 01:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Hope you're well. I made the change to the ref list because it's on this list. [1] which was created based on this discussion. [2]. I had thought we were moving towards column width as standard rather than fixed number of columns.Cowlibob (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 13:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're doing well but got to a point we're starting to revert each other a bit, so I've taken the wording differences to the talk page for you to look over and then for us to discuss - perhaps with additional input if it helps. Thanks for your work on the article too :) FT2 <sup>(Talk | email)</sup> 16:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph DiLorenzo 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. Ivanvector (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I thought you might like to read this:

http://www.vogue.com/voguepedia/Photographers

Click on Guy Bourdin. Enjoy--Philsutherland (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kat Coiro may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ]''.<ref>http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/07/zoe_saldana_and_kate_bosworth.html Profile], ''New York'' magazine, July 2010.</ref><ref>http://www.younghollywood.com/scene/kate-bosworth-and-
• //www.younghollywood.com/scene/kate-bosworth-and-zoe-saldana-are-idiots-not-really.html Profile], YoungHollywood.com; accessed May 17, 2014.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

at Dan Loeb. Much appreciated. Spicemix (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at Ann Heberleins article that I created a few days ago. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]