Why is it not allowed to post a pseudonym when someone is not generally known by his real name? George Goodman isn't known by that name, but he would be by his "Adam Smith" alias, so I believed his alias should be shown to identify him to those who know him by that moniker. I think that is important for general readers to see so they know a writer they read has died. How come it is fine to have it in his page, and on the reference that says he died in using that pseudonym, quote: "George Goodman, aka TV's "Adam Smith," dies at 83" but not to ID him *also* that way on the obit page, where you replied: "we use article names here, not nicknames"? Where do I go in Wiki to ask for a change to the current misguided procedure on the Deaths page so people can see the nickname they recognize a person by, while also of course using his real name? Nobody is trying to use only "Adam Smith" to ID him, just asking to have both his real name and his famous newspaper nickname in the Deaths page. --Katydidit (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Program name now included parenthetically ([1]). WWGB (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At least you understood the importance of giving a pseudonym in some way for a media person who was unknown in his given name, instead of constantly deleting it, saying you can't use nicknames, but you never once cited any Wiki rule against using it. I don't see the big difference in using the pseudonym by itself along with his real name in the list, and I presume there is no Wiki rule. Thanks again, and if it should happen another time with a nickname that is more well-known, just let it be added since it doesn't hurt the person's death mention in the slightest. If there is no explicit Wiki rule against something added for clarification, then you have to let it be. --Katydidit (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an article specifies that the person died of old age, should that be included? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think old age, of itself, is a cause of death and is unlikely to be reported on a death certificate. I think it more likely that such a death would be attributed to something like "age-related illness" in the absence of a more specific condition. Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaahhhh....so it is. Quentin X (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Adam Brandt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Brandt until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure what better evidence there could be for a death date than the death certificate I have for my Grandfather? Can you explain why you've edited it back to the 16th Feb 2013? I'm not sure how to cite a death certificate as it's not a web page, news, a book or journal & because the date was incorrectly reported in the media, it seems impossible to refute otherwise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcinpalmy (talk • contribs) 07:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that multiple sites all state the 16 February date: [2], [3], [4]. I'm not sure what you can do, unless you can find a source that gives the correct date. Wikipedia prefers independent sources over primary sources like death certificates. Regards, WWGB (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop labelling people as SPAs. You have no evidence whatsoever about their editing history, which may be done while not logged in, like me. So stop trying to push your own agenda, and I think you should remove those tags from the !votes of numerous editors at the Marius deletion proposal. 86.31.7.99 (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's allowed and I will continue. If you don't like it, open an account. WWGB (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read my post at the deletion proposal about not lecturing. And it seems even when people open an account you don't like it. You just don't like anything other than established editors with accounts. 86.31.7.99 (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about your reverting of my edit including the commonly used name of Kralle Krawinkel. Your edit summary states that you reverted it to match the name of the article. However, the way it was written (as Gert "Kralle" Krawinkel) and the link being set properly made it so that it should be easy for anyone to recognize it under either name. Krawinkel was referred by his nickname more than his given name--even the sourced article uses the name Kralle in the headline, and a casual fan of the group might not even recognize the name Gert. Anyway, I respect your opinion and the immense work you have done on the Death pages over the years. I simply ask--is there a Wikipedia policy or some other rationale that precludes this type of reference? Eauhomme (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a stickler for consistency so I think the name in Deaths should match the article name. Once we start to diverge, we start getting all sorts of variations (especially for people like wrestlers and rappers) like Maurice "Mad Dog" Vachon. If Krawinkel is better known as "Kralle", then perhaps a better way is to launch a page move from Gert Krawinkel to Kralle Krawinkel? I rely on WP:COMMONNAME for my position, and it applies to article titles: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural". Thanks for the compliment, I enjoy the work I do at Deaths, especially as it is one of the most sought-out pages at Wikipedia. It's also refreshing to engage in a discussion about differing opinions while remaining respectful. Too often I am greeted with messages that begin like "You $%@#&*, how dare you &^$%@*ing edit my work ...". Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response. It makes perfect sense with that policy. Kralle is probably more appropriate (I think of it like William "Axl" Rose), but either works. I find that it is too easy to get emotional about minor issues on Wikipedia, and I have seen my fair share of flame wars start up (one reason why I no longer participate much in the Articles for Deletion). That being said, "You $%@#&*, how dare you &^$%@*ing edit my work ..." Just kidding, of course. Cheers, Eauhomme (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB, please, read Talk:Nelson Frazier, Jr.#Requested move and Talk:Nelson Frazier, Jr.#Above discussion. There are no "credits" in pro wrestling TV shows so if you just watch the pro wrestling television show, you'll never know him as "Nelson Frazier". The talk page discussion on his article's page tells the story: the only reason why the article is at the birth name, is because us WP:PW editors couldn't decide whether Mabel, Viscera or Big Daddy V was his most common name, so by default, we used his real name. This sentence in particular: he is definitely not primarily known by his given name, but he's been well known by a variety of names. Look at the reliable source coverage, they all also mention his ring names because that's what's he's known for being. LA Times, Intl Business Times, Baltimore Sun, Edmonton Journal, Digital Spy. Some sources don't even mention "Nelson Frazier" in the title! Memphisport, TMZ, Sportsmole My point is, if you don't mention the ring names, some people are definitely not going to recognize "Nelson Frazier". starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the issue is more about wrestling editors not agreeing on his best-known character name, and then naming his article accordingly. I see that Frazier had at least eight ring names. I could argue that reporting just three of those is just as arbitrary as choosing one name and renaming the article. Any way, I have started a discussion at Talk:Deaths in 2014#Wrestlers' character names to which you may want to contribute. Regards, WWGB (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the unexplained revert. I was just reviewing the repeated vandalism of this page and i'm glad you're helping keep it clean. The reason I undid your changes is because many major ASX listed companies include the names of their directors. If you disagree with this, then that's fine - let's leave them out.

My greater concern is the repeated vandalism from another user:Pborobokas Kind regards, Ltobrien (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And neither should we assume readers know where the majority of U.S. states are, yet loads of articles on U.S. topics make no mention of the U.S. location in the lede or even infobox. I am not accusing you of intentionally implementing a double standard, yet that is the effect here. Also, the Chinese location is made even clearer by the usage of Beijing time (I can even change it to "China Standard Time") close by. Case closed. GotR ^Talk 02:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb question but on Deaths in 2014 you often say "elephant broom" as edit reason. What does that mean? I get broom = clean up... EvergreenFir (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... is an elephant broom used for extra large piles of shit? (If so, that joke just hit me... otherwise, I still find it amusing). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, okay. I'll try to be on the lookout for ref issues and formatting more in the future. I check occasionally, but your tireless efforts usually mean I find nothing needing fixing. I'll splurge for an extra fancy broom for you one day. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi! I can guess why you undid my addition, but I wonder what you considered to be "original" about the "research". Was it the word "nearby"? The location of Lawit is beyond dispute. And "nearby" was noticed earlier by "Schrodingers Cat": http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Malaysia-Airlines-says-it-has-lost-contact-with-plane-carrying-239-people-M?page=23 Despite the unreliability of this source, it is trivial to confirm his point. Layzeeboi (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to include mention of the nearby oilfield in the article, a reliable source needs to have made a connection between the likely airplane crash site and the oilfield. I probably should have called it WP:SYNTHESIS rather than OR. Regards, WWGB (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WWGB, I noticed you edit. I do not know who said the passports where European, but that is what the article stated and that is why I made the link to the European passport. Because Italy is part of the European Union, it makes sense... Lotje (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting that the archive bot is not working on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. I was just about to attempt a manual archive when I saw the bot was there. The page is way too long now. Are you able to archive this manually or implement a bot that is working? Sorry, I wasn't sure if you were already doing this and I don't want to mess it up anyway.

Thanks! —sroc 💬 23:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WWGB! Can you please just let the flags in the international participation area stay, because, I also corrected some errors while I was editing it.... Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.253.220.95 (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think they are not appropriate. Please seek consensus at the article talk page if you want them retained. If you made other edits in the same change, you will need to re-do them. WWGB (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand.It's just that I think the international participation list looked a bit dull, so I decided to add the flags, Thanks for understanding.... I will now comply to your edit and just accept it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincenty770Flag123 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thecodingproject (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was nothing to add, so why list the country? WWGB (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your input on the template of Premiers. Given that Giddings has conceded defeat, at what stage do we add Hodgman as the Premier-elect, prior to him being sworn-in by the Governor? Rangasyd (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template is Premiers of ... We don't add his name until he is sworn in. If New Zealand invades Tasmania tonight, Giddings will still be in control. WWGB (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Peter Cosgrove is added as a designate on the Governors-General of Australia template. If the Maoris invaded, Bryce would sign the declaration of war. Please explain? Rangasyd (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cosgrove compliments Bryce, he does not replace her (yet). It is a legal fact that Giddings is still the Premier of Tasmania, and the template must reflect that fact until Hodgman is sworn in. WWGB (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as far as I know I created the see also section for the flight, which consisted of Malaysia Airlines Flight 653, which was removed due to my frailer to cite relevance. Firstly, many articles in the see also section for aviation accidents do not cite any relevance at all, as the connection will be evident once viewed. However, if you wish for there to be a description, I am happy to suggest "hijacked and subsequently crashed en rote to Kuala Lumpur in 1977." I would be delighted to hear your response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf Nirvana (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the "see also" but I suspect another editor is likely to challenge its relevance. WWGB (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've noticed. I also added a section on the main article's talk page suggesting that a see also section should be maintained, so I'll see what will happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf Nirvana (talk • contribs) 03:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a "Deaths in..." task force and give temporary blocks to those repeat offenders who don't comply, even if that means the page would be nearly empty. Not bans, just blocks.

And then I woke up. — Wyliepedia 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, regarding the recent speedy deletion of VV Oosterhout, can you explain to me why the VV Oosterhout article was deleted? This is a football club in the Netherlands who have been competing in professional and amateur leagues since 1927. They currently compete in the Derde Klasse, (the 5th tier in Dutch football) and are arguably the most successful club in Oosterhout, along with maybe SCO/TOFS. If possible I would like to ask to have the article reinstated since I was not finished with it. I had to put it down briefly, but I added links to credible sources that it is in fact a club with a degree of coverage in Dutch print media. I look forward to your response. Best regards, (Subzzee (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Better check that last name...he was a member of the Shah dynasty from Malaysia/Indonesia...dont think its an A because its of Indonesian descent not Chinese.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got a link...I had it under "S" but I really dont know. His full name was Tengku Azman Shah Sultan Hishamuddin Alam Shah. Here is the link [5]. The Wiki link to the Shah dynasty is here- [6]. When I see that many names in a row generation to generation usually its the family name and not a first name like in Saudi Arabia. Just saying, cause I really dont know on this one.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the other issue outside of the family name is Tengku is a Title for the Malay which means Prince. That should proceed his name as we do for the Arabians, etc. It is not like Datuk.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Malaysia-related articles#Malay names, titles should be included in the article title and per Category:Monarchs of Selangor the Selangor royals are alphabetised by their given name, and not by Shah (which they all share). Hence I think the list name should be Tengku Azman Shah, listed under "A" (which I recall is the current position). WWGB (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's very confusing as it looks like the names from the Category are the same ones on the regular Dynasty page which I linked in the parenthesis. And half of those have Shah and the other half dont. Very strange. I wish we had a regular Malay person on here that could sort this out. Will just leave as is for right now.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added his middle name because there's an American with one mention in the Wikiworld at Scenes from a Movie. Not that either will probably ever have an article, but the actor has won two awards for his work and would be a more primary topic. That's all. — Wyliepedia 12:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to make several people upset with that ruling. An Auxiliary Bishop is every bit of a Bishop as a regular one. Many times they are assigned to help run a Diocese, especially if the regular Diocesean Bishop is in-firmed. They have equal authority within the Church. see Auxiliary Bishop.Sunnydoo (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLERGY states that "bishops of major denominations are usually notable". I see nothing there to extend the recognition to auxiliary bishops. The second banana is never the top banana. WWGB (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They arent second banana. A Bishop is a Bishop. They are equal in standing. One just has a permanently assigned location, the other is still a Bishop who is assigned to the Home Office if you will. He doesnt answer to the other Bishop but to the Archbishop of the Diocese. And I just dont want Noel and RFD to get bent out of shape, they do a lot of good wiki'ing. That is why I am bringing it up. They both had a hand in getting him straightened out this morning.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the link you provided for Bishop...has Auxiliary Bishop in it. You just may not see it as it is in a strange place. Look between Coadjutor and Titular...someone should clean up that article to be alphabetical.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And one last note, if you follow the links to outside sources [7] where it is explained (albeit convolutedly), auxiliary bishops fall into the titular bishop category which describes where their power comes from. A seeded Bishop has his authority from the jurisdiction, but a titular/auxiliary/coadjutor bishop has his authority derived from the Pope and is acting on his behalf within that jurisdiction. Which kind of explains the 2 lines of authority I was describing earlier. Both answer to the Archbishop but for different reasons.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see you're using Reflinks and Checklinks. I just tried Checklinks for the first time... is there an easier way to get Checklinks to add archived versions of the page? When I click Wayback Machine, nothing happens. If I open it in another tab, it defaults to some page without a link. Just curious if you knew. Trying to learn more. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had forgottem about the Wayback Machine. I think you can only access archived information six months after the archiving, or something like that. If a reference is marked as a dead link, I just look for another source that it still active. That generally works, unless the deceased is rather obscure, or the source is foreign. Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add a lot of photos of different researching powers in this event, including the major research force, China. But you always delete my photos. There's nothing about balancing, because when you only have an US Frigate on that page, that's real unbalance. By the way, the link of Chinese icebreaker "Xuelong" is invalid because it hasn't been created yet, so I have to add the picture in MH370 article.

So could you please re-add the picture or help to create the link of "Xue Long"? Thank you very much!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxjiang000 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please start new sections at the end of the talk page.

We don't need "a lot of photos". That is merely decoration. There is currently one photo of a Chinese search plane and that is adequate. The photos you added were not even taken in the search area. We all know what a ship looks like. WWGB (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported 124.171.36.210 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:124.171.36.210 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: ) and have mentioned you in the discussion about his edt-warring at Talk:Hey Dad..!, so you may wish to comment. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While there is a school of thought, excuse the pun, that alma mater refers to tertiary institutions that is not agreed to by all. Info boxes should have "school" or "education" rather than the hyper-linked alma mater. How can we solve this problem? Castlemate (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once a person graduates, the reporting of their high school is generally considered not to be noteworthy. I have rarely seen a politician with their school reported in the infobox. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of a Premiers of NSW have not been to university let alone graduated. Castlemate (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Having some push back about inclusion of notable non-humans on DOTY pages. I'm trying to make it consistent with the "Deaths in" pages. I am wondering if (1) you could tell me when/where the inclusion of non-humans on the "Deaths in" pages was decided and (2) how I'd go about resolving this? I'd think a local RfC might not be enough as I'm trying to address a more board consistency issue. I don't want to have a local RfC, go against non-human inclusions, and then seem like a sore loser and go elsewhere to address it. Any input would be great. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one place where all the discussion has taken place. It tends to come up every time a new reader objects to the inclusion of animals. Some past discussions have taken place at Talk:Deaths in January 2007#Barbaro and Talk:Deaths in 2007#Animals. Although we publish animals in Recent deaths, you might have a hard time convincing the gnomes on other pages to accept the proposition. WWGB (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for your contributions to 2014 Uttar pradesh rape case. I liked how you silently handled the issues. OccultZone (Talk) 08:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. WWGB, Why no? It's strange. See here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/orientchurch/profilo/rc_con_corient_pro_20030320_profile.html. "The Congregation is made up of a Cardinal Prefect (who directs and represents it with the help of a Secretary)". Also Secretary is notable (in Congregations the Secretaries all time with Archbishop's dignity)--Noel baran (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdusamy has an article, was a cardinal and archbishop. That is enough to secure a listing. There is no compulsion to list every position held. We are writing a death list, not an obituary. I am very confident that the majority of our readers do not want to read a two-line entry (the longest I have ever seen here} on a priest. Everything else that interested readers want to know can be found in his article. WWGB (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for these reasons I removed notice, that he was Auxiliary Bishop of Bangalore. I agree, that we can't continue to infinity. But it's obviously, that the Prefect of Congregation in more notable, that Archbishop in the local Archdiocese.--Noel baran (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the Harlan Mathews page which I edited, you removed the infobox/infobar for recent deaths, citing only heavily edited articles would get this. What would be considered a heavily edited article? What's the threshold for its use? thanks, DarkStarHarry (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkStarHarry: The page Template:recent death states that "it should only be used in cases where many editors (perhaps dozens or more) are editing the article on the same day". Most deaths never attract such heavy editing or, if they do, it tends to settle down after a day or two. Regards, WWGB (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an edit you made to Small Giant [8] with an edit summary of "nn." I am curious, does "nn" mean "not notable"? Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Piguy101: Yes, per WP:NN, it is an abbreviation for "not notable". It means that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the subject meets the Wikipedia guideline for notability. WWGB (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. JK's article is in better shape than the angels' singer was, where I've been pottering recently. I've still got more to do there. I'll get to JK as soon as I can to update/tidy up.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a tidy up at JK. Could you give it a fresh set of eyes and fix any problems you see.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding your edit.) I find it refreshing to discover that there are still some wikipedians (like you) capable of thinking, forming their own opinion, and expressing it. Thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: In case there was ambiguity, I have no basis to disagree with you (other than personal opinion/preference, and even then, that isn't a disagreement, it's just a difference of opinion/preference). Pdfpdf (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WWGB, re: your addition to the article. I am wondering if "Young is currently on leave from AC/DC while he battles a serious medical condition" would be better as "is currently on leave from AC/DC while he receives treatment for an unspecified medical condition." Flat Out let's discuss it 06:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate and thanks for updating the article Flat Out let's discuss it 06:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05 Belgian victimes + 01 Dutch-Belgian http://www.dhnet.be/actu/belgique/crash-du-vol-mh17-une-sixieme-victime-belge-53c8fd423570667a638b686b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred301278 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this language, however, the nationality of victims is determined from the plane's manifest, which reports the passport the passenger declared at checkin. There may have been 5 Belgians, however, only 4 presented a Belgian passport at checkin. WWGB (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure he's not being paid? People playing football at all sorts of levels below the AFL get paid, even in my local suburban club. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do you actually have any evidence that he is playing in an amateur league? They are really quite rare. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know the ropes as well as I do. The onus is on evidence for inclusion, not exclusion. Unless it is sourced that he is a professional then it doesn't fly. WWGB (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Most adult AFL players are professionals. Jurrah certainly has been up until now. It's really you who has to prove that his status has changed. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two cans of beer and a meat pie after the game do not a professional make. (Although in Jurrah's case it's more likely two slabs of beer.) WWGB (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have no facts, just guessing, and racially abusing. Thought so. HiLo48 (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racial abuse? That's too funny! I never mentioned race. Jurrah is just a pisshead, white or black. Anyway, I'm reverting nothing, this "conversation" is going nowhere and I am bored with it. But you cannot resist making a further comment. Can you? Heh? WWGB (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]