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 Archive 13 Archive 14

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]

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]

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]

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and did not know how else to message you but am working on the reverse racism page for a project. Why did you delete my addition of Dear White People? It's relevant to the topic, and certainly adds more balance to the page which seems to insist that reverse racism is 100 per cent real, and that the controversy is from those claiming it doesn't exist(perf logical explanations vs the other way round as it should be) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MahnoorLodhi (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 April 2016 (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]

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]

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]

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]

	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]

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]

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[1]? 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]

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 [2] . 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]

I eliminated the paragraph break, which ties the text to the following (#29) cite as you requested. Thanks for noticing. Activist (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I removed the tags you put on this article as neither seemed valid... This article was pretty spammy a while back but I cut it down pretty significantly. As it stands now, almost every line is sourced - a couple of which are articles specifically about him in valid publications ([3], [4], [5]). Basically, I'm wondering what made you think COI, given I'm one of the primary contributors to this at this point, and personally I think he's reprehensible. Nikthestunned 12:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I see that you and Mikkitobi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) are in a content dispute about the researchers' names being included in Yisrael Kristal. Since the other editor is new, could you go ahead and open discussion about the matter at the talk page? That way, there's a record on the article's talk page about the outcome and it's easier for other editors to participate. Plus, I'd like to get this matter settled without having to issue blocks for edit warring. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see these two messages at my talk page. Mikkitobi wanted "an admin to review this case and make a ruling". I know you know about 3RR already, but...for the sake of proper notification, I've now told you the same thing I've told him: sort it out on the article's talk page so I don't have to block either of you for 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content you are removing from the day articles under the rationale "rv non-notable entries" are actually quite notable subjects with a great deal of historical significance. For example, see some of the content that I have restored after your removals, along with the edit summaries I provided: diff, diff, diff. Please consider adding more detailed edit summaries explaining your stances. Also please consider researching the subjects more before removing their entries, if you haven't already been doing so. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rms125a. It is sometimes confusing to follow your edits, when you make a lot of changes at once while also splitting paragraphs, so viewing a diff is hard to follow (as with some of your recent changes to Rob Ford). One thing I'm wondering is if you are aware of our WP:KDL guideline. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Also, thanks for the improvements to the article, which has been on my watchlist a very long time. Can I ask that you separate out your edits so that splitting paragraphs do not appear in the same diff as other changes you make? Otherwise it makes it very difficult for your fellow editors to follow what you are doing. (One more very minor point: You seem to use the abbreviation "rv" to indicate you are removing something. Most people understand "rv" to mean "revert". The abbreviation "rm" is generally use to indicate "removing" something.) Thanks again. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paul Erik -- of course. Some paragraphs I split because I thought it might make easier navigation and/by separating more important details from lesser ones, but I will follow your advice. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good. Just to be clear, I did not have any problem with you splitting the paragraphs in the way that you did; it's just that I would advise you to do so in a single edit, and use another edit to make other changes you are wanting to make. This will make it easier for your fellow editors. Thanks! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this diff from an edit you made. Again, while I have no doubt that most (or all) of your edits there are constructive, it is very difficult to follow what changes you are making, as you split paragraphs, remove spacing, and similar things that make it hard for your fellow editors to follow what is going on in the diff. Please consider making a series of edits instead, to reduce the possibility of misunderstanding, and to help the rest of us to review the changes you have made. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Erik: Well, other editors have since reverted. I know I didn't delete any dead or unused links, I left them for those who know how to do WAYBACK, so I am not sure exactly to what you are referring. I am going to sleep soon, it's after midnight in NYC, but I'll study the diffs in the morning. Yours, Quis separabit? 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Erik: "as you split paragraphs, remove spacing, and similar things". OK, I got it, as opposed to "I did not have any problem with you splitting the paragraphs in the way that you did; it's just that I would advise you to do so in a single edit, and use another edit to make other changes you are wanting to make." You're right. I have to slow down and keep like-minded edits in separate edit summaries. I think I get it. A lot of it is trivial but which in the aggregate might look confusing. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fewer changes at a time, and keeping like-minded edits together, should reduce the possibility of confusion. Thanks a lot, Rms125a. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a, in this diff, I cannot tell what you have "trimmed" (as a portion of your edit summary states). When you also change spacing or line-breaks at the same time, the diff becomes unreadable for your fellow editors. Please look at it and try to understand how it appears to others who would like to review your edits. (It is surprising that I need to explain this to such a long-time editor.) I'm guessing that there is nothing in your edit that I would disagree with, but again, I can't tell by looking at the diff. Please do more than reassure me. Please change the way you are editing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first paragraph of Help:Diff#Simplifying diffs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Under the day April 28, for the year 1930, there was an entry present for several years. I noticed it missing, and it looks like it was deleted because of no references. I tried to add it back to the page today, but it was deleted afterwards. I have very little experience editing Wikipedia. What do I need to do to prevent an add from being deleted? The add is for the first night game in the history of Organized Baseball, and I have sources like the National Baseball Hall of Fame, the Smithsonian, and several baseball historians. Thanks. Kansasindy (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansasindy -- I already replied on your talk page (see [6]). Quis separabit? 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please return to Talk:Delmer Berg and explain this edit? Geo Swan (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan -- Errr, OK. I trimmed some of the paragraphs and sectioned them out more evenly. Don't think I removed anything vital but revert as you see fit. Quis separabit? 21:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You also rewrote perfectly adequate references, making them unreadable -- and thus unmaintainable. Geo Swan (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan:

A) I really don't understand what "making them unreadable -- and thus unmaintainable" means. Sorry.

B) Moreover, the sum total of my recent edits to the article was 768 characters; you have added at least 4,726. Clearly you are doing far more than correcting any misediting on my part.

Yours, Quis separabit? 22:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you not make use of diffs? I do.

  I often return to articles I worked on, to update them, and find other contributors have made lots of edits to them. That would potentially be a good thing -- if those other contributors were making corrections to the article's intellectual content; or if they were adding new material. What I often find is a disappointment -- busy contributors had made trivial, or completely pointless, changes to the article's metadata, without altering the article's intellectual content, at all.

  Ideally, I should be able to call up the article's revision history, and ask to be shown all the changes since my last edit. I might find someone else has already made the update I thought was necessary.

  What I often find is a diff that misleading seems to show the article has been entirely rewritten. Yet, when I have spent a very considerable amount of time, stepping through those revisions, one at a time, I find there weren't any changes to the article's intellectual content, at all.

  Line endings are significant to diffs. Breaking a paragraph up into two paragraphs looks, to a diff, like two paragraphs of brand new material. Similarly, removing line endings, confuses diff.

  I find {{cite}} templates, where each field has its own line, far easier to read, and maintain, than those where someone has put the entire template on one line. But I don't rewrite the exisiting {{cite}} templates, in an article, to make them conform to my favourite rendering. If I have to fix someone else's {{cite}} template, and they put everything on a single line, I make the extra effort to keep my corrections on that line -- so diff will still give useful results.

• WRT my 4,726 bytes -- there is a little "history" button at the top of the article page. If you press it, it shows you when the article was changed, how many bytes were changed -- and the edit summary where the contributor said what they did in that edit.

  There is a button named "prev", that shows you how the article was changed, in that edit. In the edit marked "fix refs", I restored the references you rendered unreadable and unmaintainable. If you click on the left hand circle next to that edit, and click on the right hand circle next to my most recent edit, and click on the button labelled "compare selected versions" you can see all the changes I made, since I fixed the references.

  So, do you really know how to use diffs, yourself, and you asked about by 4,726 bytes because you couldn't be bothered to do another diff? If you have somehow managed to be a prolific contributor here, without ever learning how to collaborate effectively with other contributors, by learning how to read and use contribution histories, then I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to stop, and learn how, before you make another edit. If you know how, and didn't do so for any other reason, then I will remind you that this is supposed to be a collaborative project, where we all do our best to work together. Geo Swan (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you tagged Category:Terrorism deaths in Ireland and Category:Terrorism deaths in the Republic of Ireland, but I can't find a discussion for them. – Fayenatic London 00:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic -- Hi. I forgot about that. It was just a merger suggestion, not a deletion discussion. Forget about it. You can remove the tags. Thanks, Quis separabit? 00:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I saw that you deleted my addition to the paragraph on literary sources of Agatha Christie's titles. I found the information about the origin of "The Mousetrap" in the Wikipedia article of that name, which contains the following reference: ^[1] Will that do? Gnangbade (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy/consensus that you can show me which indicates "globally notable" is the criterion for inclusion, and not "The births and deaths listed on this page are only for people for whom there is a Wikipedia article (no red links and no redirects). Please do not add yourself (unless there is a Wikipedia article about you), or anyone without a Wikipedia article. Any entry added for anyone without an article will be deleted." as listed in the edit window? If there is such a criterion, it strikes me as entirely subjective. What metric could be used for saying, for instance, that an Indonesian actor with over seventy film credits and a forty-year career is less "globally notable" than a Filipina actress with a ten-year career and barely a dozen film and television appearances, especially when both of them were/have been only active in their home countries? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do this. When you say "rv", it means "revert". We revert vandalism or bad edits; you were not reverting the addition of a bad source there, you were apparently trying to remove a link from a source that went bad. External links that go bad are fixed using the procedures described at WP:EL, but the common sense issue here is that you merrily dropped the whole reference to the source just because of the link. Don't do that, that's just wrong. Especially when you can see that the citation tag has a "ref" attribute, which means something above is likely referencing it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel the need to delete people from dates page? What gives you the authority to determine what is or is not "notable"? I am re-adding names of people I feel belong. They have Wikipedia articles, so they are "notable". I don't get it, I'm sorry. Why can't you leave well enough alone? Just asking. Please revert your edits. Terabthia2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terabthia2 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your answer to this user went in the wrong place. I have created a subpage for you as the talk page already existed for this user, even though the user page didn't.Deb (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you explain your criteria for determining if an individual with an article is sufficiently globally notable? The long-term consensus has been that they have an article that itself passes the test of notability. This has served well over the years. Whatever the method, it is not correct to to say "rv" on the entries: you are removing them, not reverting, which implies an editing test, vandalism or a malformed edit. This is somewhat insulting to those editors who clearly placed those entries there in good faith. —BillC ^talk 23:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have now found the discussion. —BillC ^talk 23:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though I deny claiming ownership over the Seeberville Murders article, I do intend to revert the article as I had put quite a lot of effort into several new sections within said article. If you have any objection to that please let me know as the content that will be reverted consisted of fully-sourced claims backed up by historians, local news sources of the time and other contemporary historical documents. Furthermore, I was unable to attend the initial discussion of the report as I am currently within shelter care and have time restrictions on the internet as a result of my schedule here. The Copper Miner (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, as you said, "copy and paste" from other web sites. However, I have been using several books as well as a variety of recycled sources. I rephrase most of the wording and the books that I do use no longer have copyright status. The Copper Miner (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit: I would refer you to this discussion on the talk page. While a lot of her activities suggest she's been naturalized, or somehow perhaps inherited her U.S. citizenship from her mother, I've never found a clear source stating that she is a U.S. citizen. So if it isn't explicitly in the article, we shouldn't have it as a category. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... unfortunately, that's a Daily Mail article, and because of that upstanding publication's admitted history of making stuff up sometimes to drive traffic to their website, there is considerable resistance to treating them as a reliable source for anything besides sports. And I agree ... if the Mail says your mother loves you, turn around because she's probably behind you with a knife. Can you find another, less dubious source? Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case --Oh. I am a Yank. Didn't realize the Daily Mail was held in such low esteem. Quis separabit? 21:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Daniel Case (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that ancestry.com link isn't coming through. Intriguing, though ... do we know if the "Anna Wintour" mentioned is indeed the current Vogue editor? Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo this [7] edit? It seems like an irrelevant factoid in a seemingly random area of the article. — k_scheik ^{talk to me!} 02:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @K scheik -- you're right re ([8], [9]) -- I screwed up. Someone else has fixed it since then, anyway. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me feel good to see an editor actually thanking me for an edit that I made. I'll also try to continue cleanup days of the year articles with AWB

Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary for me to re-add the information to further dispute resolution with the IP. Robert McClenon recommended I request semi-protection (which has been granted) explicitly for that purpose, the IP only engages in discussion when he is reverting someone's change, and his dynamic IP causes problems with engaging with him, which McClenon has acknowledged, so semi-protection will require him to register to be a single, static user name, and to continue discussion instead of reverting. Without the text being restored, he has no incentive to return (indeed, since he is an IP he isn't even watchlisting). Furthermore, a sysop determined the IP's edits to be "disruptive" (his word) when semi-protecting the page. Per edit warring policy, reverting disruptive edits is NOT edit warring. Last, on Vera, multiple sources consider her to be not just an unseen character, but one of the most prominent in US TV history, so she IS significant for inclusion on the Unseen character page, even if this status should be caveated ^[1] Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmyers1976 @Robert McClenon-- not it isn't -- wait for the dispute to reach some sort of resolution and some support for your position or you are likely to be sanctioned for edit warring. You claimed we reached a compromise, but you are betraying it in re Vera, which is causing me to question your good faith. She was seen and likely heard (although the latter doesn't matter since the category is Unseen Characters not Unheard Characters) which means VERA DOES NOT QUALIFY, an error, which if necessary I will correct and I am not interested in Scott Pierce's misnomer in The Deseret News, which is not a particularly reliable source. Quis separabit? 18:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I talked about mentioning Vera's ambiguous status in light of the fact that she is most commonly considered an unseen character, and you did not actually object to the idea, you said to wait a bit - and that was almost a month ago with no intervening discussion from anyone, so I was bold. And to claim that the Deseret News, a Pullitzer-prize-winning newspaper, the oldest daily newspaper in Utah, "not a particularly reliable source" is being ludicrous, and makes me question YOUR good faith. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mmyers1976: Vera's status is no longer ambiguous. You are the only editor here insisting she was an unseen character despite the fact that she was seen. I don't care how old The Deseret News is, and I don't mean to insult such a venerable publication, but its columnist (Mr. Pierce) is no more an expert on this issue than anybody else, unless he has a degree in Cheers studies from an accredited university. Quis separabit? 19:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not insisting she is unseen, I am insisting she is widely regarded by reliable sources as an unseen character, as one of the most notable unseen characters, which makes her and the discrepancy significant and notable enough for inclusion in the article. No, Scott Pierce does not likely have "a degree in Cheers studies from an accredited university," but he is a reliable secondary source, which neither you nor the IP can claim to be. You're completely dismissing and ignoring one of the three core content policies of this project. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from editing disruptively, as you did at Pre-Code Hollywood. If you continue, this IP will be blocked from editing. Quis separabit? 20:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? I gave a related link, the historical response by legislators to Video Nasties in the UK is similar to the response to Pre-Code Hollywood, See Also sections are generally used to link to similarities. So block my IP if you must but it wasn't vandalism. Someone Not Awful (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Someone Not Awful. My snafu, I guess. I can't block anyone -- I am not an admin. It's a generic warning to apparent or wannabe vandals, mostly IPs. Sorry I misinterpreted your edit. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NP, cheers! Someone Not Awful (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you changed the nationality of Ms. Dunst on her page to read "American-German" as opposed to the more correct/usual "German-American", I'm assuming since she's primarily considered American due to birth and secondarily German by later citizenship application. She is technically three-quarters German ethnically due to her parents background. Either way I corrected the preceding indefinite article to "an" rather than "a" since your change brings a vowel to the front. 64.134.64.94 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Peter78[reply]

Hello Rms125@hotmail.com, I see that you have reverted my info about the Duchy of Croatia. Please look at the article of Branimir of Croatia. There you can read that through papal recognition the Duchy of Croatia is recognized as an independent state (see also info: The early medieval Balkans, by John van Antwerp).

Greetings, Peters01 (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've become fairly active in fixing pages with bare URLs and noticed that you are the one who adds the linkrot tags to the majority of these pages. So, I wanted to send you a quick note thanking you. Keep it up! Meatsgains (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I kept thinking, "If this guy doesn't stop thanking me for pending changes stuff on days of the year articles, eventually I'm going to start asking him stuff." And guess what?

I'm second-guessing myself with this revert because I genuinely have no idea if the event in question, The Great Slave Auction, qualifies as "notable in that society and for some reasonable amount of time". My gut tells me it does, and on second thought, my explanation, that the auction took place over two days, reads as really weak. To be clear: is an event automatically disqualified from listing at articles like March 3 if it started on March 2? Is there a bright-line policy/guideline/suggestion that establishes that YES, this gets listed and NO, this doesn't meet the standard? Thanks, RunnyAmiga (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently tagged the Gayle Conelly Manchin article as needing to be merged with the article on her husband, Joe Manchin, but that you did not state the reasons for your proposal on either Article Talk page, and I was wondering if you could do that so your Wikipedians could better understand the reasons for your proposal.--TommyBoy (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mjbmr (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just about to close the report, but you came close to breaking 3RR today. If you get cross about reverts, stick a note on the talk page, a noticeboard if necessary, then take the metaphorical dog for a walk while other editors have a look. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for appreciating my edits on It's a Mad Mad World. It is my pleasure to improve information on one of the greatest and classic films ever made in history. :-)--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have inducted you into the "Wall of Honor" in appreciation of all your hard work in Wikipedia. Your edits in the List of Puerto Ricans has demonstrated that you have an outstanding knowledge of what is required for an individual to be considered notable in accordance to Wikipedia policy. Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I love working with you Rms125a@hotmail.com, but may I ask you, please, to refrain from making cosmetic changes which make it harder to follow the same stuff after you. I don't understand why you removed helpful line-breaks at Nazi crimes against the Polish nation. I would prefer that if you happen to have a bit of free time on your hand, you'd rather look around for new citations requested in that article 3 years ago. I know you can do this quite well. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 20:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop adding this as a postnom. It is only ever added on very rare, very formal occasions, and then usually in full, as "Knight". It's not even used in the official Honours Lists in the London Gazette, which surely gives a clue as to its non-usage. You're not even adding it correctly even if it was used, either adding it to the bolded inline name (which you surely know we never do with postnoms) or adding it at the end, after such postnoms as PC (which always come after actual honours). This is all incorrect and I really don't know why you insist on doing it. You are pretty much the only editor who does this (which must tell you something) and I have mentioned it before. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp -- you have never brought this issue up. As you did not deign to explain the reasoning for your massive overhaul of the postnomial I asked you "Why?" in a few edit summaries. Quis separabit? 22:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find I have. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like it that you give thanks for edits, makes me feel useful! (For the record, I saw the show, and...loved it!) Flami72 (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over three years ago you noted[10] how part of her article needed to be sourced. I removed that part of the article in its entirety. A Google news search comes up with nothing. Google came up with Imdb and some blogs. None of which meet WP:RS. I also edited California Split to remove mention of this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@...William -- I don't really understand your point but the only reference on the Prentiss page is IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source. What the heck does "is the complaint department really on the roof?" mean?? Quis separabit? 14:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1- I was just letting you know since you raised the issue.

2- That's my signature line. My maternal grandfather used to regularly say the complaint dept is on the roof....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason behind the removal of numerous military engagements as non notable? For example the Battle of Pavon involved 32000 people.--Catlemur (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur: Battle of Pavón is an almost completely unsourced, seriously POV, article. I will try to improve it but its currently long, rambling, synthetic text make it, in my opinion, unreliable. Quis separabit? 23:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the articles you removed are notable, regardless of their current quality. Therefore the removal was unjustified.--Catlemur (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Catlemur -- OK, check it out now. Quis separabit? 14:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good.--Catlemur (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have done some clean up in Rahul Verma (social activist) to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Can you please check the same and suggest if the template message can be removed. ThanksShibanihk (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that you can't compare with my "impartiality and neutrality and good will and lack of bias" - but, despite you stating the bleedin' obvious I nonetheless wish to thank you for such high praise; even coming from you it means something ;) Sarah777 (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarah777: -- A chara. Good to hear from you. I didn't know you were still hanging around the place when I delved back into ancient history just so I could storm off in high dudgeon from that other article's talk page. Did you read about what happened to Sarah Connolly, descendant of James Connolly (see here)? You guys and gals across the pond need to get your act together. The mask is never supposed to fall in public. Is mise... Quis separabit? 20:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you are suggesting I'd dislike someone because of their accent??! My own Ma was Italian and she doesn't sound like she's from either Oxford or Ballyfermot. And no...she didn't even run a chippers. Gimme a break..eh? Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarah777: no, just asking if you had heard about the outrage. Wish I understood the Hiberno-Cockney. "And no...she didn't even run a chippers" -- I assume that means something about a fish & chips shop but I am stuck in NY and I don't entirely get it. The BBC only gives up crap like Downton Abbey over here. LOL. BTW: Your Ma being Italian, have you ever heard of Anna Hassan (maiden name Fusco)? Yours, Quis separabit? 23:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've heard of her now! But not before you mentioned her. Looks like she was a good teacher. I noticed she wasn't tagged for IrlProj - she is now. Any more you come across like that feel free to tag them - my current mission is scouring Wiki to include relevant articles in the IrlProj. Ciao. Sarah777 (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps The Italian chipper is a long-standing thing in Ireland; they came after the war from a handful of villages and their grand-kids are still serving greasy chip, onion rolls and batter burgers with no more of an accent than I have! Sarah777 (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Miss Baker renounced her American citizenship and became a citizen of France, I am not sure that removing her from Category:20th-century American singers is entirely correct. She was born and grew up in the US, had her first successes in the US and remained an American citizen for the first 31 years of her life (all of which took place within the 20th Century). Would welcome discussion on the Category either here or at the article's talk page. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Pavle Stanimirovic entry Thank you for your attention to the entry I wrote on Pavle Stanimirovic. I want to ask you about how to improve it. You deleted several parts, mostly for being insufficiently sourced. I am new to this and it was useful to have examples of what works and what doesn't. However, one section that went was about the education of this man. The information is crucial for the entry to be a valuable biography. The subject grew up to be a criminal authority and master jewel thief. He is the rare criminal an ex-con who also went to Swiss boarding school, learned a half-dozen languages and played tennis at a high level... at the same time, he became an early member of the notorious 'Pink Panthers', a European burglary crew well-known for their sophistication. So the subject's education is very important to the entry. Of course, the sourcing was the real issue.Frankly, I didn't know how to cite this. Since writing the entry, the subject has appeared on a radio show and briefly described his background, so I can add that reference, but the truth is that I am a journalist and know about him because I am writing a profile on the man. I have interviewed him on the phone (he lives in Miami and I am in New York) several times, interviewed his mother once, and had email correspondence with a former classmate of his to verify this information. But my work is not published yet. As a result, I did not know how to cite it. I also was concerned about saying that I know these things through personal communication because it might appear that I am writing an entry for a friend. We have similar backgrounds in one sense. I have never met this man in person and value the integrity of the Wikipedia process for personal reasons I can explain if you are curious. Can you help me restore the education segment, cite it properly, and avoid the appearance of impropriety? If you're busy or uninterested, don't even reply. I won't make a fuss. If you have the inclination, I have one other question. A sentence describing the role that the subject played in Perez Hilton's reporting of the Kim Kardashian robbery in Paris was excised. The reason was given was 'unreliable BLP source'. I don't understand. Thanks again. I like doing this and think I have much to offer Wikipedia, so your help will matter for more than this one article. DanielGenis (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Daniel Genis[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Brian Connolly into List of people who adopted matrilineal surnames. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you added an "unsourced" tag to the section "Television" of The Valley of Fear. Can I ask you what source do you think the section need? A source to prove these three shows exist (even though each shows has a link to its Wikipedia page), or a source to prove the cited episodes adapt this specific novel? Also, why is the tag in the "Television" section only and not, for example, in the "Film" section? Newblackwhite (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit, now it is clear that the only tv series in that section that needs a source is Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century (I guess it's for the line "Despite the opening credits saying the episode is inspired by The Valley of Fear, there are actually no connection between the two."). The question is, do we need a source for the fact that the opening credit claim inspiration, or for the fact that they are unrelated? If it's the former, then a simple screenshot like this would be enough. If it's the latter, then things get trickier because the show is pretty obscure and I don't think there are episode reviews that would be considered reliable sources. There is TvTropes ("The opening titles state that the episode is based on The Valley of Fear. However, there is no tangible connection, aside from Holmes, Watson, and Moriarty being involved in both"), Literature Wikia (""The Crime Machine" is credited as having been inspired by The Valley of Fear. The episode, which first aired on September 25, 1999, in the United Kingdom, bears little resemblance to the story") and a fansite ("The title card claims it was inspired by ‘The Valley of Fear’ and perhaps, if you spent some time with a thesaurus, you could find some similarities beyond ‘there is a criminal gang in both stories’ but by far the biggest difference between the two tales is that this one is awful"), but all of them would be considered unreliable sources by Wikipedia standards. The point is, the episode itself show that its plot has nothing to do with the plot of the Valley of Fear (other episodes of the show are either modernized and simplified adaptions or at least have a thing or two in common). So, what should we do? Should we remove the line saying that the episode has a different plot (at the risk of confusing readers who will think otherwise) or should we leave it intact by assuming the episode itself is a source and thus we are not doing an original research? Because otherwise, the citation needed tag could remain there forever. Newblackwhite (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peirce changed her name long ago. The infobox records her birth name. Wikipedia does not "deadname" people in BLPs. You state in your hidden comment "legal name" - but you have no reference for that and you have no idea what the legal status of her name is. Peirce also practices law at Birnberg Peirce & Partners under the name "Gareth Peirce" - not "Jean Peirce", not "Jean Gareth Peirce". That's because that is her name! That she changed her name, and specifically abandoned the name "Jean" which you have now incorrectly added twice, is noted in several references appended to the article. Keri (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand you last edit that deleted the work I'd done there to incorporate the links to information about coastal flooding but had nothing to do with Rick Scott. I do not understand your use of rs POV here, but on the other hand I know it is considered provocative. Plus, you detected links to wiki pages the were there before my edit. I was attempting to incorporate them in the context of the Rick Scott page, not jut having them sit at the bottom like click bait to the subject of sea level rise. I admitted to no being a fan of Scott but only did so thinking people like you would see I was going out of my way to be far and maintain NPOV.

Please explain you revert in a manner that is not knee jerk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhammer111 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A small point: Do you really find it necessary to request a citation for an actor's appearance in a wikilinked movie when the wl article lists him as a cast member, and this is verified by IMDb and other sources on the wl page? If you do, why not add one of the readily available sources yourself as part of your valuable input? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2016 (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 Krupki page, your edit caused an unsupported 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) 00:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In return of your appreciation toward my recent posts on July 12, I send you some baklava (virtual kind of). Peace Buddy. Batchesko (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a, why are we writing an encyclopedia article in present tense? The article will outlive the current political context regardless of what happens. Sca (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no the article will be rewritten (numerous times I suspect) before Trump is sworn in. Then, if Tillerson IS the nominee and IS confirmed as SOS by US Senate we can fix the tense. Shouldn't be much of an issue. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But don't you see that "is believed to be the front-runner" could become erroneous anytime – tonight, tomorrow, whenever – whereas "in December 2016 ... was believed to be" will always be true, though perhaps not relevant at some point in the future. Sca (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca -- Honestly, I am not sure. It's a little like splitting hairs. But if you really feel that strongly about it then go for it. Quis separabit? 01:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sca (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the expected happened. Glad to see it's in past tense. Cheers. Sca (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I've seen you patrolling lots of date articles in particular for vandalism, so from one recent changes patroller to another, cheers! prmcd16 👽 (u)•(t) 19:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i respect your reversion of my edits but i just wanted to know what mistake did i committed in reviewing those changes on March 27.The article was very short but the sportsperson Dorotea Sutara's birth date was sourced from Badminton World Federation's website.Was this revert done because of Notability Concerns? .Thanks.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 14:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Param Mudgal -- Hi. I don't know if I understand your point about her birth date. I never changed her birth date or questioned its accuracy (see diff) see what you mean about the birthdate in this diff. No, that was not an issue. I am sure the Badminton World Federation's website is reliable. No, I believe she does not qualify, under the more stringent criteria for inclusion in the births and deaths listings by day of the year, likely because it may just be too soon. Once she qualifies as an athlete I will be happy to restore her name. Quis separabit? 14:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i Understand.Thank you for your clarification and help.Cheers.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 18:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to let you know that what you did here , removing the entire lead, putting it under "Career" and tagging it as unsourced, in violation of WP:LEDE, does not help Wikipedia whatsoever. This is not the only article where you have done this, as evidenced by your recent edits to Jasenovac concentration camp. As another user noted, you're simply splitting a referenced paragraph and fact-tagging its portions . This serves no purpose at all and actually makes the article worse. Please refrain from doing this in the future. 23 editor (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@23 editor -- sorry -- you know I am a serious editor. I just thought the ledes were too long and that was my way of fixing them. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not without community-wide consensus. 23 editor (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The South Sudanese Civil War is "non-notable"? "Up to 300,000 people are estimated to have been killed in the war" and "About 3 million people have been displaced in a country of 12 million, with about 2 million internally displaced and about 1 million having fled to neighboring countries." —howcheng {chat} 04:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Howcheng -- you're correct. Thanks for alerting me. I accidentally deleted the wrong entry. Thanks so much. Quis separabit? 04:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert, Thank you for all thank you's! I noticed you undid thisrevision regarding date article March 28. I see your point. As you may have noticed I've started to add quite a few links to the births- and deaths sections of the date articles. I noticed a lot were missing compared to the year articles (f.i. 384). To that end I created a little program to check missing links and generate content. The links are added manually. As a consequence I also corrected a lot of errors (wrong dates etc.). So far I checked the years 500 BC - 1075 AD. I'm getting to the point that not all persons listed in the births- and deaths sections of a year article should be added to the corresponding date article. Do guidelines exist when to add a person? If so, where can I find them? Regards, Emiel Nijhuis (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)|[reply]

@Emiel Nijhuis: I should be thanking you for your work. Most of your edits are fine. I really haven't touched them (with one or two exceptions) as they are plainly classically notable. If you are not sure whether someone qualifies, go with your best judgement. Trust me, there will likely be someone who, if he or she disagrees, will so indicate. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Emiel Nijhuis (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did some quick research on the matter. While the villages in the hinterland (it's Zabiokovlje - note the typo) are c. 20 km away from Makarska and separated from it by Biokovo mountain range (so geographically they are not really close), the massacres in question were evidently part of the same military campaign and all happened in a matter of days of weeks (could not extract the actual dates, but August-September is definitely right).

Some sources cover the hinterland massacres and Makarska massacre separately, while some cover them as a single event (e.g. sh:Pokolj u Makarskoj 1942.). Anyway, 900 + 141 appears like double counting to me. The Croatian Wikipedia seems to be confused over the matter too (hr:Pokolj u Zabiokovlju 29. kolovoza 1942.). I'd be in favor of merging the entries for the two. Still, the sources need to be checked to to make sure that the 900 figure indeed does subsume the Zabiokovlje events. GregorB (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Maybe it's best not to merge the entries before it's fully certain these two refer to the same event. Leave it as it is for the time being? GregorB (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No updates really, status quo through and through... :-) GregorB (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference my rant at User_talk:Film915#What is "not very consequential people"? Why "reduce eurocentrism"?

I see so much of what could easily be called 'corrosion' at Wikipedia that a long series of changes seemingly reflecting only the whim of individual editors just freaks me out. Whether it is preferring "East Sea" over "Sea of Japan", "Taiwan" over "ROC", or preferring 20th century people over 19th century, or non-Europeans over Europeans, it all appears the same - the imposition of arbitrary personal whims or goals on Wikipedia articles.

When I then see two different people of equal certainty batting people in and out of lists with equally enlightening "insufficiently universally notable entries" and "not very consequential people" it sure looks like naught but corrosion to me. I've previously tried to encapsulate this as:

Is there yet a general realization that Wikipedia is a proud shining obelisk inscribed with knowledge in all the scripts of the world, but made of chalk and drenched in a corrosive atmosphere of acid rain?

This is a long-term worry for me - see User_talk:Shenme#Evolution where a since-banned self-confident user had no problem justifying that every biological article needed recasting with the main point of the page being "evolution!!1!1" (such as retitling sections and forcing them as the first or second section of numerous articles).

What guidelines are you using for 'insufficient'? What _are_ the guidelines for being 'consequential'? 'Global'? 'Universal'? Huh? What process is being followed here? Please read my rant and Film915's response, where I see what to the worried me appear to be ad-hoc reasonings, but might be justifiable to others. Shenme (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I understand that I'm freaking out, but this shaking the box labelled May 22 to see what falls out isn't the only thing I observe. Crap like genre warriors should concern everybody *because* it is just one special type of self-confident mal-behaviour, and there are squillions more 'types' out there! "Symphonic power metal" vs "melodic metalcore" vs "heavy metal" is something to war over for some people? And been going on for years? (yes!) Yikes!!! Shenme (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shenme -- I have already replied and explained my position at @Film915's talk page, which is where you initiated the conversation, and where we should keep it for consistency's sake Quis separabit?

G'day Rms, I just wanted to let you know that it is my practice to render page ranges as 281–282 and 56–57, not 281–82 and 56–7. I believe that there is no clear MOS guidance on this (I'm happy to be proven wrong), so any changes should only be by consensus, and respectfully ask that you don't change page ranges in articles I have written unless such consensus is achieved. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings, Rms125a@hotmail.com! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 19:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Hello. Why did you revert my addition of Dame Nerys Jefford DBE to the list of DBEs? regards Ironman1104 (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ironman1104 -- I made a mistake. I was unaware of the new DBEs. I undid my revert; check the edit history. Although you must remember to alphabetize. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was responding to an alert, and hadn't appreciated you had corrected it. It's not a question of not remembering to alphabetise, I hadn't looked carefully enough to notice that there is an eccentric arrangement mixing chronology with alphabet, just assuming that the chronological treatment by decade was carried through to date of appointment. Ironman1104 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has to be in alphabetic order, just like it has to be chronological order (i.e. by year). Otherwise, it would look like a disaster and make locating names far more difficult, especially since some people are known by other names/titles elsewhere. Quis separabit? 16:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rms125a@hotmail.com,

You put on the Fran Jeffries article that she was born in San Jose, California with reliable source. But on the California Birth Index they tell she was born in Santa Clara, California (here -> [11]). Cordially. --Danielvis08 (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas Rms125a@hotmail.com!!
	Hi Rms125a@hotmail.com, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly - best of the season to you as well, and happy new year! And happy editing; I always enjoy it when I cross paths with you in my rambles 'round these parts. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was an unexpected but very much appreciated surprise. May I take this moment to wish you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and a New Year full of blessings. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert, Thank you for the barnstar. Happy holidays and all the best from Holland. May all your wishes come true in 2017! Regards, Emiel Nijhuis (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for all your contributions here! :), Have a great Crimbo & New Year! :) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 10:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Robert! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your reversion because birth and death dates for non-notable relatives are wholly irrelevant to the article and basically just amount to unimportant trivia. If you'd like to discuss on the article talk page, I'm up for that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall our interacting but I am glad it was pleasant. Have a great holiday! Coretheapple (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

	The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12 BLPs 11 RFAs 10 New Users 9 Barn Stars 8 Admins Blocking 7 Socks Socking 6 Clerks Clerking 5. Check Users Checking 4 Over Sighters Hiding 3 GAs 2. Did You Knows and an ARB in a pear tree. -May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598

I don't even know how to place this on a barnstar-- please do so for yourself. Your thanks after my edits (while Wikipedia is noticeably developing into a hostile environment like Commons) have sustained me in nearly 50% of my work here since 1 1/2 years in a coma in the ICU and then a nursing home while I learn how to stand, walk, and and use basic muscles. Thanks for your kindness! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your thanks and attention! You really are too kind. Happy New Year and happy editing to you too!! Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

There's quite a bit more to repair. Google news archive no longer has The Milwaukee Journal online, so that's made a difference for quite a few articles I've worked on. It may be a slow process as I try locating suitable substitutes. ;-) We hope (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your changes to the existing date format in the article, which is d/m/y. There is even a tag for this at the top of the edit page which has been there since 2012. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) However, this is an American article and the correct format is m/d/y. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlpearc: Yeah, that's what I thought. Now I have reverted back to d/m/y. Please advise. Quis separabit? 16:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DMY is correct in that article, because it's a US military-related topic. Per WP:DATETIES,

"In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military, including U.S. military biographical articles, use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage."

It's fine if you disagree with the application here, but such a change needs to be discussed first, as the article has used DMY for a long time. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, of course, yes military article's are d/m/y/ :P - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) - BilCat (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here. FYI, since you were involved in the original AfD discussion. Happy New year (belatedly) Rms. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]