Archives

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

I realize that I have strong deletionist and immediatist instincts, which I will work to control. I have OCD which is why I often edit for MOS consistency, which can mean anything from dd/mm/yyyy or mm/dd/yyyy formatting to fixing or tagging barereflinks to removing or delinking (depending on the age and relative importance) of redlinks. Nobody said I was perfect. Quis separabit? 15:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Hindi tayo dapat mawalan ng pagasa sa ating pagtahak sa mundong ibabaw.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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]

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)

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]

	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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	:) Greg Holden 08 (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rms! I see you removed some more from Wolfe's article and asked for clarification on some points. Most of what was added there was by a family member with this edit. As you can see, nothing was sourced. I removed some info before you did, which was also unclear to me. If they clarify, I'm sure it won't be sourced. If Wolfe wasn't so instrumental in developing the cities of Winnipeg and Regina, I would chuck it all and speedy this one. C'est la guerre! — Wyliepedia 05:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert: I've been editing for eight years, probably a couple of thousand edits, and you are the first to ever thank me, despite it being a rather innocuous edit. I've authored a couple of pages and done major edits, corrections and rewrites possibly on hundreds. Thanks for thanking! That book was the only one in my childhood home, many decades ago. Feel free to erase this section. Activist (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rms125a@hotmail.com. Your comments at Talk:S. Truett Cathy seem to be randomly indented, making threads difficult to follow. Would you mind properly indenting your comments per WP:INDENT and WP:TPG? All you need to do is count the number of colons in the comment that you're replying to and add one additional colon to it for your own reply. By using the show preview button, you can see if you got it right and adjust as needed. Thanks in advance.- MrX 21:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Hot Coffee, like so many places in Mississippi, has such a unique name. I've also edited Money, Midnight, Pigeon Roost, and Love...all in Mississippi. I have a fondness for the lost river towns. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I cannot follow your reasoning “you may be right (see talkpage discussions), but you can't just delete sourced text with which you disagree)” to delete my latest revision. So you agree that based on the discussion it may be right to remove the two sentences about Abt. But then you say it cannot be deleted just because it is sourced text? Well, if something does not really make sense, I see no reason to keep it, do you? Furthermore I think Abt’s book is not a source for criticism. He doesn’t know Shin and doesn’t know about the human rights situation in North Korea. He just read the story in the newspaper and made a marginal note in his book. This does not really qualify as a source, at least not for this article. Wikipedia Verifiability says “While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” Exactly this applies to the two sentences I removed. I think some time ago this was included, as someone thought that there must be a kind of criticism section. But he did not find any better source than Abt’s book (and this fact should tell us something). Anyway now we have the North Korean government as source for criticism and do not need the other poor source anymore. So I do not see any reason to keep the two sentences. -- Gamnamu (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you could take a look at the article Pettakere cave that I have created I would appreciate it! :). Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. Could you take one more look at the article now, because I have added more information and done some tweaking as well. Appreciate it. The DYK reviewer told me that perhaps the references needed some tweaking in formatting. I am not sure, but take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, please take a look at the Detmold child article. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Did you know at the bottom. User Crisco wants me to not do DYKs anymore on the basis that I am not good at doing DYKs apparently. But my track record shows otherwise, just look at DYKstats my articles right now for this month alone has over 40,000 views for those who reached over 5,000 views. And then some more for those who did not reach 5,000 views. me and Crisco had a dispute today, and I think I hurt him somehow and now he is after me. However the accusation has no merit. Am I the best ever DYK user, no. Do I need advice on the basis that I otherwise should not do DYKs, no. Please take a look at the discussion atleast.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for your awesome edits! :) Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 04:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:Charles G. Myers: I quote from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Ranges: "Use a dash, or a word such as from or between, but not both: from 1881 to 1886 (not from 1881–86)". That looks clear enough to me. If you know some other instruction of the MoS that might apply here, give me a link, please. Kraxler (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Merry Christmas to you! Please take a look at the article Carolina Neurath. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at the article Karolina Olsson. I appreciate it. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit, we keep stepping on each other causing errors. I reverted it back to before I started editing. What I was adding was not that important. Merry Christmas. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am done, sorry for the edit bumping, you can add back what I stepped on in my editing. I will add the names of his children later and their birth and death years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: How am I supposed to know what you are going to write about? Quis separabit? 18:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that 179th and 180th New York State Legislature are blue links, there's a good chance that after 180 articles there will be coming more... Besides, the red links of unquestionably notable subjects should not be removed. The "What links here" function shows an editor, at the time of writing an article, where the subject was mentioned already. That helps a lot to dig up facts. Kraxler (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that I always run into you while recent changes patrolling, or just mindlessly going through a page's history (I like doing that, admittedly). Well, since you have ~118903 edits, I see you're a very prolific editor indeed! To keep you fuelled up, loaded with caffeine, and ready to increase that edit count, I figured I'd give you a cup of coffee. Cheers! --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 23:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit to Cotton Mather, in the puritan resistance section, you say "Mathers disagreed, and most, if not all, Puritan pastors stood with Mather." Do you mean "The Mathers" or "Mather". Generic1139 (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thanks for nominating Category:Pine City, New York for deletion. There are tons of underpopulated small town categories out there that a local editor created in good faith but have no hope for growth. I tagged the category with the Template:Cfd on your behalf. If the category is not tagged, when the closing admin goes to remove it, they generally won't proceed. (Template:Cfm is used for merging categories.) Thanks.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you have reverted some further information I added from the obituary of Stuart Preston which I thought was pertinent and interesting since he does not have his own Wikipedia entry. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/stuart-preston-11184.html In truth I don't know how to add references, and all my attempts as a result of your prompting have failed and I have not saved them. Maybe you can add this reference and then I will see if I can get it to work myself? Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Conrad (talk • contribs) 11:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert I don't know why you deleted the section on Muller-Ury's critical assessment which I based on one in another artist's page ages ago which was far more subjective than mine. You appeared to accept the changes when I revised it before, and as I can't spend all my time writing for Wikipedia and have only recently begun adding the references you wanted, it is very disheartening that you remove perfectly factual statements. As I have seen more Muller-Ury pictures than anyone else living, I think Wikipedia should accept that I know what I am talking about and that I did not add the section without thought; I may be "close" to the research, but I am trying to make it more accurate all the time as my research and writing of his biography progresses, and in any case you deleted what is a quotation from a source mentioned in the section, and which I had not yet got around to amending the way you want, with a footnote. Please revert the section and allow me time to make changes with references. Thank you in advance.

Hello Robert Please would you not put the section on Adolfo Muller-Ury's third cousin Hildegarde Muller-Uri ahead of other information about HIM, as it makes no sense whatsoever; she is really part of the Lost Colony of Artists in San Augustine, and really I only put her in Muller-Ury's entry at the end until such time as I could get more information about her to create her own page, which she deserves. Placing her in the middle of Muller-Ury's article is extremely misleading. And why delete all the other facts about her, which you can read online in the Lost Colony articles? If you don't know about these obscure American painters, then you will cause confusion by inserting it in the middle, and I have spent twenty years researching Muller-Ury and don't want my hard efforts in search of facts undone. Thank you. It might be better if you communicated with me, rather than just reverting things. When I worked on a related page on Count Antoine Seilern, the editors were more helpful in discussing changes. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Conrad (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Barry Williams (spree killer). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the New York Times obituary today, "Her coronation, on Sept. 8, 1945, just days after Japan’s surrender had ended World War II, came at a time when a beauty queen could still capture the nation’s attention and even emerge a heroine — in Ms. Myerson's case as the first (and, so far, only) Jewish Miss America." If you don't believe that's true, you'll have to take it up with the New York Times. Coretheapple (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In April 2014 you have tagged the article with {{POV}}. It is not immediately clear what is the problem with the article; to me it seems that controversial stuff in it has been largely whitewashed in the last year or so. Could you briefly describe the POV problems in the article's talk? I might add some comments of my own, and I'm also considering doing a (POV) cleanup. GregorB (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given your obvious personal vendetta against Lena Dunham, I suggest that you may wish to refrain from editing her article moving forward. Our biographies are not designed as a platform for those with a demonstrated personal dislike and/or hatred of their subjects to express or vent those viewpoints. Should you make similar comments in the future, I will file a request for enforcement of the discretionary sanctions relating to biographies of living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a@hotmail.com, if I'd seen that hair-raisingly offensive comment when it was fresh, I'd have blocked you like a shot. I agree with NBSB that you'd be well advised not to edit Lena Dunham further. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen that needs rev del. Murry1975 (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I didn't have time to check it was still there, but I've removed it now. Thanks, Murry1975. Bishonen | talk 12:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, if you revdel that diff, then you also need to revdel the subsequent edits in the history until the comment was redacted, otherwise it's still visible to anyone. Bencherlite^Talk 12:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it's not perfect. Pity nobody alerted an admin at the time. I'm not actually going to delete all the later stuff; that's too high a price. The revdel I did has made it harder to find, and has made a point to the editor who posted it, which I certainly hope they take note of. That'll have to do. Bishonen | talk 12:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33 Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Radziwill was an actress look under "Career and fame" on her page Redsky89 (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rms125a@hotmail.com, this is what I saw:

On March 9, 2015, Walker signed legislation making Wisconsin a right to work state.[135] In 2012 he told reporters at the state Republican Party convention that right-to-work legislation "It’s not going to get to my desk ... I’m going to do everything in my power to make sure it isn't there because my focal point (is) private sector unions have overwhelmingly come to the table to be my partner in economic development."[136]

While campaigning for re-election in 2014, Walker said he had no plans to pursue right-to-work legislation focused on private unions, and "private sector unions are my partner in economic development." Once the legislation was initiated in the state legislature, Walker stated: "I haven't changed my position on it, it just wasn't a priority for me. But should they pass it within the next two weeks, which is their target, I plan on signing it."[137]

What do you think? I'll leave the final decision with you. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks! Hugh (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gilda's Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

trivial references; not notable

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Wikipedia Motivation Barnstar
		Thank you for all the 'thanks' that you give when I, and I presume others, make small changes to pages in which you have an interest. It motivates me to keep going Icarusgeek (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert - thanks for your appreciation. I've noticed that the text at the top of 1927 is garbled:

1927 (MCMXXVII) was a common year starting on Saturday of the Gregorian calendar (dominical letter B), the 1927th year of the Common Era (CE) and Anno Domini (AD) designations, the 927th year of the 2nd millennium, the 27th year of the 20th century, and the 8th year of the 1920s decade between 1583 and 1929 and with Julian Value: 1927 is 13 calendar days difference, which continued to be used until the complete conversion of the Gregorian calendar was entirely done in 1929.

Everything after the word 'decade' is pretty much incomprehensible. This must be a problem with the template {{Year article header}}, I think. I've raised the matter on the template's talk page, but I've also noticed that another editor raised the same issue 9 months ago, to no effect. Might this be something you know anything about? I can't even work out whereabouts in the template code this text is generated. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rms125a@hotmail.com. You have new messages at Colonies Chris's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of images to date pages has been generally discouraged on the grounds that there are dozens of events on the page and subjectively selecting images to be included give undue weight to a particular event. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of the "thank you"s. I'm just doing my part to monitor the Special:PendingChanges list everyday. Regards, Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Just because. It's been a year since I posted the last one, and every so often I drop in to make sure all is well with you :) Belated happy Easter!! Alison ❤ 07:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for giving me credit on the shooting of Walter Scott. I have a real problem here. When I type in the word "law enforcement personnel" on Wikipedia, it only automatically linked to the police officer article, which is really inaccurate to say that, since "law enforcement" refers not just police officers but also correction officers and other type of law enforcement agencies. I'm not sure who did it, but I want to link "law enforcement personnel" to the "law enforcement officer" article. Can you help me out? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the huge "thank you"s, that's too many.. I just adding nice folks to the lists..:-) If you don't mind, could you give your opinion here: my user talk. Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please do not remove red links from articles. Also, please do not remove subtemplates, such as {{URL}}, from infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing the charges from the list for those whose indictments were withdrawn? It is still official and open record. I am not sure that this is the best idea. Rmhermen (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, RMS. There is a discussion occurring at WP:BLP/N#List of people indicted in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia which you should be aware of. I don't see a problem, but you should probably put in an appearance at BLP/N. Cheers, and keep up the good work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	This barnstar is for two things. The first is for all your helpful contributions over the years. The second is for all the thanks that you give out for others' helpful edits. Epic Genius (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please: 1) do not change it from the American date format, without any appropriate reason; and 2) do not delete RS-sourced material, especially without noting that you are doing so in the edit summary. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry: I always make a point of distinguishing between mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy format consistency, and always user the former for anything to do with the USA. So I don't know what happended unless there was some kind of edit conflict. As for the second, I have to check what you are referring to but sometimes for what I consider minor changes I do just put "ce" (for "copyedit"). Let me check. Thanks. Quis separabit? 18:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I checked the diffs and found this damning one, in which the following text:

Soofi was raised as a Muslim by his father.<ref>[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32582704]</ref> When his parents divorced, he and his brother moved to Pakistan to live with their father and stepmother,, and then later from Pakistan to the US in 1998 to live with his mother.<ref name="hollyyan,cnn"/><ref>[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32582704]</ref> In the 1990s, Soofi attended a private school in [[Islamabad]], Pakistan.<ref name="hollyyan,cnn"/>

was removed. I would never intentionally remove important text like that. I think I had copied and pasted my version when I hit an edit conflict, checked the last edit and misviewed only minor edits, and updated my text. Sorry. Quis separabit? 18:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. Fast-moving article, so I can understand how that could happen unintentionally. All the best. BTW - if you want to move this thread to the one where it started, including my comment, that would be fine with me. Others could then more easily follow it. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter can be a WP:SELFPUB WP:PRIMARY source, as long as the account is verified by Twitter. See WP:TWITTER. Scott Walker's account is verified. Elizium23 (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User Rms125a@hotmail.com, I saw zour changes at Matthias Laurenz Gräff. Please chance the name back to Matthias Laurenz Gräff, because this is the name of the artist. Thanks a lot. Greetings --Artium72 (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the button to change the name back into M L G. Please dont change this. Thanks a lot. Kind regards --Artium72 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a, do you have any particular interest in Fulton Oursler (or his family), that you edit his Wikipedia entry at times? Aboudaqn (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Never heard of him before I came upon his article. Quis separabit? 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy deletion tags from Denise Milani. I had to go to a sysop to create that article since it was creation protected. She said that since my version was "substantially different" than the previous versions so she allowed for it to be made. She also said that their was a high probability of it getting CSD tagged, so she moved it herself. So I can imply that she would have also removed the CSD tag. That is my justification for removing it, since it says that the creator of the article can't remove CSD tags. Read this. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Airplaneman#Thant_Myint-U Airplaneman ✈ 14:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rms125a, you removed the edits I made to Public holidays in the United States and March 22 that listed holidays for Wake Island. According to the U.S. Air Force which runs Wake Island, "Wake Island observes all US holidays except Presidents’ Day and Columbus Day. Wake Island also celebrates Wake Island Day (22 March) and the King of Thailand's birthday. In order to sync with US Holidays, all Friday holidays are celebrated on Saturday and all Monday Holidays are celebrated on Tuesday. Weekday holidays such as Thanksgiving are celebrated as they fall." This info can be found here: http://eaest.com/pdf/06Component_Plan_D_Biosecurity_Mngt_Plan.pdf

I would like to re-update the pages accordingly. Surfsupusa (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you withdrew your AFD of Marcy Borders you wrote: "I was focusing on 9/11 aspect but apparently the notability in this case was the iconic photograph. Live and learn." Sorry, I don't think that you came very close to recognizing your mistakes, here. For starters.

1. captured in an iconic photo;
2. 9-11 survivor who subsequently succumbed to cancer at an early age;
3. fully profiled in multiple articles, in multiple notable publications, across a range of years;
4. specifically invited to appear as a representative at remembrance events, for instance she was flown to Germany for a remembrance event of the tenth anniversary of 9-11;
5. subject of a play;
6. notable enough to be recognized by a nickname -- "dust lady".

In your nomination you wrote: "I must be a heartless bastard. It's just not fair to others who survived and who died from the 9/11 attacks and have no other claims to notability." You got that approximately right. A long, long time ago some wikipedia contributors seemed prepared to try to cover every 9/11 victim, every 9/11 survivor, and a whole bunch their friends and relatives too. The general consensus was to only cover individuals who first became known through an association with 9-11 if they subsequently measured up to the GNG criteria.

What you have overlooked is that a surprising number of survivors, victims, and some relatives HAVE subsequently measured up to the GNG criteria.

Marcy Borders is an example of a survivor who does have other claims of notability. This can apply even to individuals who were merely relatDebra Burlingame, for instance, was an NN individual, who was merely related to a 9-11 victim, who subsequently measured up to GNG, post-9-11.

I have noticed that some of the very longest serving wikipedia contributors can be quite stubborn about complying with wikipedia conventions that grew up after their habits were set. Many of us expect those who nominate an article for deletion to do a due diligence check, prior to making the nomination. Failing to do so pisses people off, because it wastes their time. This is the WP:BEFORE convention.

Another very long-standing convention is that the individual who nominates the article for deletion should leave a heads-up on the talk page of the person who started the article. The reason why it is very important for nominators to do this is that our deletion decisions are supposed to be consensus based. The person most likely to voice arguments for retention is generally the person who started the article. When you make the decision to not follow the convention, and fail to leave that heads-up, it gives the unfortunate appearance you don't want a real discussion. When someone starts an article, and only learns it was nominated for deletion AFTER it was deleted, they are generally angry, sometimes furious, that they didn't have a chance to voice the arguments for retention. Even if, for the sake of argument, most experienced contributors thought deletion was a foregone conclusion, it is still really important to inform the article creator. If deletion really was a foregone conclusion, and they honestly didn't see why, then participating in the deletion discussion, voicing their reasons as to why the article should be kept, and having other patient people point to whatever wikidocument makes deletion a foregone conclusion is part of their wikipedia education.

Robbing them of that learning moment is (1) not fair to them; (2) bad for the project as a whole, because they still won't know any better, and may continue to repeat the same mistake, over and over.

So, without regard to how many years your habit of not informing the person who started the article is, I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to leave that heads-up if you ever initiate another AFD.

I listed six factors that contributed to Marcy Borders notability. No offense, but it think if you had complied with WP:BEFORE, and had researched Ms Borders yourself, you would have been aware that there were multiple factors here.

Factor #2, surviving 9-11, only to succumb to cancer at an early age. Many volunteers who were going through the rubble also succumbed to cancer. This happened to hundreds, maybe thousands, of people associated with 9-11, and very few of them will measure up to the GNG criteria.

But, what many deletionists seem to forget, is that wikipedia notability is cumulative. Very few of our biographical articles are about individuals who are really only known for one notable factor. By long standing convention, winning a Victoria Cross, or Congressional Medal of Honor, or your countries equivalent, conveys notability, all by itself. Many deletionist argue for completely discounting lesser medals. That is wrong. A Bronze Star, Navy Cross, or Coast Guard Gold Lifesaving medal should all, also be recognized as conveying some lesser measure of notability. And the same should hold true for that subgroup of 9-11 survivors, who succumbed to cancer at an early age. That conveys some notability.

Borders is a member of a much smaller group -- survivors, who succumbed to cancer at an early age, and had that cancer connection prominently discussed in many newspaper articles after their death.

This brings me to my second request. You seem to have a habit of not feeling any obligation to read the article in question very closely, and not feeling an obligation to do your own web search to make an independent decision as to whether the subject measured up to our notability criteria, before initiating an AFD. If you really have this habit, and you don't think you can break it, then I am going to suggest you consider retiring from nominating any more articles for deletion.

AGF, AGF, AGF. Everyone calls for others to show it. And it seems sometimes that those who call for AGF to be shown don't show very much of it themselves.

The thing is, we all have a limited store of ability to assume good faith. It would be much better for the project if we all did what we could to not call upon our fellow contributors to expend their AGF unnecessarily. When we can avoid behavior very likely to piss other people off, we should avoid it.

Informing other contributors when you nominated an article they started is an example of avoiding a behavior likely to piss someone else off.

Similarly, actually reading an article carefully, with an open mind, and then doing your own independent web search, to reach a well informed opinion as to the topic's notability, before calling for its deletion, is another example of avoiding a behavior likely to piss someone else off.

Thanks for your consideration of my requests. Geo Swan (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Cool. I'd put 82 just to make it the same as in the article at least. But it's good to get the facts right about such a decent and heroic man. Dick Shane (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, thanks also to you (and others) for helping expand this article. I'm pleasantly surprised that it seems to have been un-affected by edit wars etc. like other Troubles-related to articles! Regarding the 16/17/18 - there were 16 Disappeared in the Troubles, then add Gareth O'Connor and Lisa Dorrian adds the 18 total. GiantSnowman 12:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your good work on the Salem witches. This was something I wanted to do a while back yet never quite got around to. Your work is appreciated. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Soft science fiction categorization which you added to Star Trek as it did not appear to be supported by the article's verifiable content at this time. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that back in June you renamed many of the articles on related people to include the suffix "(Salem witch trials)". This does have the merit of consistency, but it goes against the general principle of not unnecessarily dsambiguating. Another editor has chosen, last month, to give that principle priority by renaming Deliverance Dane (Salem witch trials) to the un-disambiguated form. Was the original change to the longer form a result of a discussion somewhere? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you could, please take a look at my noms at TAFI. Would appreciate some more input on several articles. Cheers. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the case in your edit here:

• This 1997 newspaper article does not contain information about a 2006 event, or support the notion that they "continue[] to dominate" "today".
• [1] does not name any of the guests.
• This newspaper article does not contain the "of the year" quote. (The other ref that you removed from that sentence supported it, in a somewhat different version.)

Please also be aware of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop moving the curly brackets at the end of infoboxes to the end of the last line, they're much easier to see when they live on their own line. This also parallels conventions used in computer programming, Thanks. BMK (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Why are you undoing a dummy edit? Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, though. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Norman Finkelstein page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, User:Rms125a@hotmail.com! That's not my edit that you linked, but I did see it — and I agreed with that edit and did not revert it. The cited Forbes piece does not support the content saying O'Keefe has no interest in actual investigative journalism (although it does refer to "O’Keefe’s brand of ‘journalism’" in scare quotes). If you want our Wikipedia article to state in Wikipedia's voice that O'Keefe has a "complete lack of interest in actual investigative journalism", you'll need a reliable source which clearly conveys that. So why the "tsk, tsk"? Or was that meant for another editor? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I noticed your edit. Personally, I'm not so sure about putting that at the beginning of the lead on that article. I do think it is important to discuss his conviction in the lead, but I think his primary notability stems from his work as a film director, and that extra phrase at the beginning is sure to provoke the anger of the other editor who seems to think Wikipedia is terribly biased against Mr. McTiernan (or at least that I am). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, take a look at the article about Marie Serneholt which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eunice Sanborn 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/Eunice Sanborn (2nd nomination) 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have disabled pings, I started a discussion about the {{moresources}} tag at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian#More Sources. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, can you explain your reasoning for reverting my edit to John Brown (abolitionist)? Was it that I added the group was multi-racial? Or that the group was captured, not just Brown? I would encourage you to re-read John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry to familiarize yourself with the facts of the incident if either point seems contentious to you.--TM 11:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QS, you're in breach of the one revert rule at the IRA chronology page. Gob Lofa (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rms125a@hotmail.com,

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

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

Ignore the title of this section. I see you are having trouble with a certain person, which I won't mention names. Of course, we have that in common. In my opinion, this person may have some recent unresolved issues. What do you think? Adamdaley (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Is your e-mail address the same as your Wikipedia User name? I can send you something you may like, if you are interested. I see that we have a lot of common interests in film, TV, etc. I have an old, undated print interview with the great actress Grayson Hall of TV's Dark Shadows. I think it's from "Soap Opera Digest". I have scanned it into PDF format and I could easily send it to you. Do you want it? If so, what e-mail address would you like me to send it to? Thanks! JGKlein 16:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

G'day Rms, I have seen that you have placed a number of {{cn}} tags on World War II in Yugoslavia and others. The former article already has a {{refimprove}} tag at the top. In case you didn't know, it is completely unnecessary to tag every uncited paragraph with a {{cn}} when the whole article has been tagged for reference improvement. We all know it needs some work. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I didn't feel the need to add a ref to every single sentence in the Magazine Fort article. I expected >20 inline references to be appropriate for the length of the article. Normally it is OK for a sentence or fragment to be covered by a cite at the end of the paragraph (or slightly before or afterwards if it is clear how it is covered). This is in line with WP:CITEFOOT guidelines. In general as well, perhaps we might avoid placing too many tags on an article. I might in fact consolidate some of the 12 clean-up tags that are now for example on the Fianna Éireann article. Certainly the article has some issues, but large clean-up tags every few lines do not in themselves correct those issues or necessarily improve the article. Guliolopez (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted 2 undiscussed moves of yours from 2014 which were clearly against the consensus on the articles talk pages - Hilary Armstrong and Estelle Morris. I am happy to have another RM if you feel that the articles should move. But Given previous concensus and WP:COMMON I don't think you should move either of the articles without discussion.CalzGuy (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CalzGuy: I thought that was what BOLD meant. Anyway I really have no interest in those articles and completely forgot about them. They're definitely not bucket list items. Thanks for the advice. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, regarding this, as that conflicts with my understanding -- but more importantly, because I don't see any clear statements of consensus on the matter, one way or the other -- I've opened a thread at RSN here. You likely received a notification, but just a heads up just in case. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please delay on editing Carnew executions and Dunlavin Green executions until my student finishes editing. This is part of an educational assignment. Thanks. auntieruth (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add this tag? There were/are no external links, only in-line references...Zigzig20s (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have a point. Ouch! Coretheapple (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reverted my edit adding mention of Ophiuchus. May I ask why? Dkendr (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		You're the most civility user in Wiki encyclopedia community that have make an majority thanks alert to the constructive users, nice and keep it up! SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure if you realise, but with this edit to Branimir Glavaš you added copyright text. The text also included the wording "last week", which should never be used in Wikipedia's voice in articles, especially when the events in question are from January. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Rms125a@hotmail.com! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 10:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you sent me 4 Thank You messages for my recent edits on Hansjörg Wyss. However, after a while another user reverted all of my edits stating that I misrepresented the sources (I don't think I did). I started a discussion on the talk page of Hansjörg Wyss as well as on that user's talk page and I wanted to ask you for your support given you thanked me for my edits. Best,BankerStar (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Thanks that you restored my edits. I didn't want to restore my edits myself. I thought it would be better to notify you and to have a more experienced editor like you restore my edits. Thanks for your support. Best,BankerStar (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! On a lark I decided to look at the "Recent changes" list, and I noticed at least two curious reductions on the same IP talk page, each tagged with "cleaning up ...". The user page I'm talking about is User talk:71.202.1.48. Sensing something unusual, I decided to look at its history. Sure enough, there were many "cleaning up". I did observe something similar once in the past, I looked at the last *addition* edit, which turned out to be made by you, and it was a second warning. It is all too reminiscent of a certain user talk page I mentioned where he/she "hid" the warnings by "deleting" the text, and after I reported it, it soon resulted in him/her account being blocked indefinitely. I will let you make the call on that IP user though. Thanks! --TheBlueWizard (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @TheBlueWizard -- thanks for the kind words. I checked the IP 71.202.1.48 and there is no current block, much less indefinite. Also, I am not clear what you mean by "I will let you make the call on that IP user though." Thanks, Quis separabit? 03:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, since you apparently know the editing history of User:71.202.1.48 ("second warning" stuff), I thought you would make a better judgment call...like reporting, or just wait until he/she makes a third no-no. I was saying this because in my investigation on another user, I noticed in the history there were repeated "final warnings" which the user conveniently "deleted". You can see this in the history info on User talk:Yo8088. I simply don't have a lot of experience with deciding whether this or that warrants further actions. Hope this helps. --TheBlueWizard (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBlueWizard -- Ah, I see. Well the last substantive vandalism edit he made was when I warned him. Everything since then is him/her (pbly him) playing and deleting stuff from his talk page which he/she (pbly he) is entitled to do. So there's nothing to do for now. Thanks for your updates. Yours, Quis separabit? 04:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I should have mentioned that User:Yo8088 continued to vandalize Wikipedia pages even after he was given "final warning", at least twice! Upon cursory viewing of that user talk page, I wouldn't see that warning at all...but I did notice how he/she said the message will be deleted after read, which raised my internal something-is-fishy alarms. So I dug into that history, plus contributions...and you can see how that user got blocked indefinitely. So, my point was to direct the attention to unusual deletions...is he/she "hiding" the warnings? Oh well...anyway, happy editing! --TheBlueWizard (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBlueWizard: I get it. But it is fairly established, as far as I know, that editors can blank or delete anything from their talk page(s). That alone won't cut it at WP:ANI to seek a block against the individual. Unfortunately, we have to do it the hard way, monitoring and warning. Those who continue to commit vandalism after being properly warned then should and usually will be blocked, for varying degrees of time depending on the degree and nature of the infraction(s). Yours. Quis separabit? 04:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello Rms125a@hotmail.com, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Happy editing, Caballero/Historiador (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

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

• On the Dorothy Geeben page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)    –[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Hi Rms125a: The Happy New Year template you've been sending (example diff) is missing closing </div> markup, which is centering subsequent headers and comments on people's user pages. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Rms125a@hotmail.com: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. North America1000 21:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Hello, Rms125a@hotmail.com. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 21:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

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

Now see what your time-traveling fireworks have done. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some months ago you added a "neutrality banner" to Liam Fox. I've started a discussion at Talk:Liam Fox#Neutrality banner and it would be great if you could contribute to the discussion about what you think needs to be done.— Rod ^talk 11:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Rms125a and HAPPY NEW YEAR! Thank you for your support! I have a problem and I need your advice. Today I received a message in my e-mail inbox from the user Andreasmperu, saying this: Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikidata, you may be blocked from editing.

As you noticed, I edit always with a reason and a source only when I find errors. I don't vandalize and certainly I don't find my contribution "disruptive". What's your opinion about that? And what do you suggest me to do? Additionally, that user has never made any correction to what I've edited.

Thank U very much! CHE (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A view of Lake Bondhus in Norway, and in the background of the Bondhus Glacier, part of the Folgefonna Glacier. A belated Happy New Year. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Why on earth are you nominating pages of an editor who's not been on since 2008 ? ... His only 2 edits to this place was to add smiley faces to his userpage and talkpage ..... Yes the name's gross but he's not edited since 2008 so it all now seems rather pointless, I've also removed my UFAA report as as I said no edits since 2008 so blocking would be pointless.... If he comes back we can deal with him then but it's extremely unlikely he will, Thanks. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RMS, It is not clear to me why a comment by an modest German parlementarian, mentioning dead popes, is so particularly important. Many people no doubt commented on Tudjman, viewing him as a hero, a criminal, or something in between. Do we quote them all? I can see that a quote by Kissinger is important, but not some German parlementarian. Anyhow, the section is about the deaolings with the international court, and it really does not contribute that. I move to remove the IMHO ridiculous comment.Ludwig Boltzmann (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ludwig Boltzmann -- you may be right. Why not seek consensus on the article talk page? My talk page is not the site to open or extend the discussion. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. I will do this. Ludwig Boltzmann (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - besides the fact that you responded to a year old comment which shouldn't have been made, you should know talk pages aren't forums. And they especially should not be used to discuss BLPs of people not connected to the article. I've redacted that. Please don't replace it. If you want to delete the whole section, feel free. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you revert my addition "outside of Canada" to the mention of Andre Bessette in the article on Jan. 6? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend, I set the col-break optimal if anyone has minimum an old 15" or 17" screen, larger is no problem at all. It looks like you did it for a tablet, didn't you? — MovieFex (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC) ;)[reply]

33 items on the left - 42 on the right side, but I'll try to fix it to "universal". — MovieFex (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC) ;)[reply]

Hi. I see that you are not familiar with IBDB (a Broadway database). It is totally different from IMDB (a user-created Movie site). IBDb is a WP:reliable source with an editorial board that compiles the information using high-quality sources, such as Playbill programs. See http://www.ibdb.com/About. It is cited in more than 6,000 Wikipedia articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already read, and contributed to the conversation you quoted in your revert. There is no definite consensus over 'organization by notability', but the conversation is definitely leaning against it. So please don't do that. Boomer Vial^Holla 00:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop removing people from articles relating to days of the year, and quoting this[2]? This conversation you keep quoting is not a valid reason for removing people from articles the way you are, especially considering consensus is swaying against it. Boomer Vial^Holla 06:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really understand this edit. There's no vandalism and the person elected was not Will Glendinning, but his wife, Pip. Will was elected for Lower Falls and Pip for Upper Falls. Valenciano (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Valenciano: who said anything about vandalism but it was Pip Glendinning, not her husband Will, who defeated Máirtín Ó Muilleoir but gave up her seat when her baby was born. Quis separabit? 21:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, take a look at the article about Molly Sandén. Any improvements are welcomed :)

@BabbaQ: Looks good to me. Yours. Quis separabit? 01:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The speculation of experts as expressed in reliable sources has always been allowed, as long as it's clearly labelled as speculation and not fact. That's why you were wrong to remove the speculation (assuming the book it came from is an RS), but right to remove the category, because it's based not on facts but on speculation. BMK (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For encouraging a new user. :) ZacBro7682 (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, How Are You, Regarding Article Frances Bay, Most Be Of Note , That Under Reference 10 , The Seinfeld And Happy Gilmore were Prominent Roles, And Started In Radio ,Do Not Know How To Do Inline Citations, Could You Do It For Me, Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.213.114 (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are tagging the description "Collaborators and quislings" used by Zerjavic. The source is on line [3] . Please verify.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zerjavic did not elaborate on the the description "Collaborators and quislings". On Wikipedia we must post what our sources are saying. Our opinions do not belong here.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Woogie10w: Therefore and thus, {{Clarify}} is, in fact, appropriate. Quis separabit? 02:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to review the calculations of Zerjavic and his critics. Your tag has prompted me to research this topic. We need to present the varios sources from a NPOV. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Give me two days or so and I shall complete the article and have it peer-reviewed for accuracy, grammar and composition. AustinHammond (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AustinHammond -- OK. Quis separabit? 18:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide me with the supposed unsourced claims I have made on the Copper Country Strike of 1913-1914 page? I have a plethora of sources for this topic available that I might use. AustinHammond (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I have no issues with your edits on the Copper Country Strike of 1913-1914 page. AustinHammond (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are accusing the wrong person. I did not change it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]