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]

I'm not changing it to the proper chronology. I don't mind line-item simple fixes, but this, again, is ridiculous. I was going to do the add-in Sunday morning but was away from a computer. Live and learn, I guess. — Wyliepedia 03:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrie Biddell. — Wyliepedia 08:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article Wylie, well done mate! You have done the lady proud. I also was surprised to see that she has the same middle name as my wife. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe readers to be gullible? Or unable to tell what they won their award for? This pickiness hinders the ability to highlight many aspects of their career. Murphy is notable and has done way more than Eleanor and Franklin. Rusted AutoParts 12:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was uncalled for. I came to actually discuss and you act like a child and not even address what I said. Rusted AutoParts 12:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you write Award winning (blah and blah) you are implying that two awards were won. It is not difficult to write prose that reports notable achievements and tells the truth. WWGB (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it lying? All that's being stated is Murphy won an Emmy. The entries submitted to highlight her career do not suggest she won for those. And it doesn't mislead the reader either. I'm not implying anything, you're just reading into the prose of the writing. Rusted AutoParts 12:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what others say at Talk:Deaths in 2014. WWGB (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that removing the incorrect age (75) constituted a serious change, rather than a minor truncation. Quis separabit? 12:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, tampering with a source is never acceptable, no matter how wrong it might be. WWGB (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disease-related deaths (narrowed down by location, i.e. Category:Disease-related deaths in Australia, Category:Disease-related deaths in the United States, Category:Disease-related deaths in New York) is a general category used by default when there is a death from unspecified natural causes — i.e. not death from a road accident, a drowning, a murder, etc. — and the place of death is known. Everyone dies of something (when the doctors don't know they say "heart failure" or "respiratory distress"), or we'd all live forever, you know. Quis separabit? 15:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication of a cause of death. It really is inappropriate to invent things. For all we know, she may have killed herself, fallen off a ladder or suffocated on a prawn cutlet. WWGB (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that is the distinction between natural death and unnatural death. Had she killed herself of or died in an accident presumably that would have been reported by now, whereas sometimes the nature of a person's final illness is not disclosed or specified by the surviving family and remains unknown (i.e. like actor Ralph Waite or writer Tom Clancy). But I take your point. One mustn't boilerplate. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you have to call the hostages -- some of whom have been beheaded, and others of whom are living -- dumb, whatever your personal views. They've probably taken enough abuse. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, to make a reference to "The Beatles" they are neither dead nor captive. They are dumb to associate an English accent (not a Scouse accent) with a Liverpool band. This whole Beatles thing is a crock, manufactured and promoted by the media. WWGB (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear. In the least. Hostages who have been ransomed out and released have reported that they and those still hostage or since decapitated referred to the guards as such. Anyway - whatever your POV, perhaps in this time you could hold off on making hostile assertions against the hostages, some of whom are living people, and others of whom are freshly beheaded. Just a suggestion. Epeefleche (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mental image here! And for the formatting, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:10, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

Given your previous input you may be interested in this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Election_links The Tepes (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite you to provide your opinion on this topic. Rusted AutoParts 21:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat similar to John Holt, you may care to take a look at the debate over the date of birth (and therefore age at death) claims for this English singer-songwriter. Her talk page is worth a read, particularly concerning the 'reliability', or otherwise, of so-called reliable sources.

Frankly I do not have the definitive answer myself, but you may be interested in the claims, and counter-claims, which have somewhat riddled her article's editing history following her demise. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at his article (Wiki page). It's saying in the affirmative that he was born in 1950, making him 64. Rusted AutoParts 03:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of my reversion, his article was presenting two conflicting dates of birth. If the article now presents an agreed position, I have no problem with the death list reflecting that agreed age. WWGB (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This content was contained in my sandbox. How is it possible to speedily delete the drafting of an article in a user sandbox?. I am removing the the speedy deletion template and I marking this sandbox to be entirely deleted because now the contents are gone. Thank you for reminding me that the best way to work on an article is off-line in a wordprocessing document. The policy of speedily deleting sandbox pages should be re-examined. I would like to discuss this practice on the appropriate noticeboard. This practice would be extremely discouraging to a new editor who is told that article creation should be done in the sandbox. I am assuming that the proposed deletion was done in good faith, but I certainly question the practice and the person who tagged it for speedy deletion. If I had walked away for about a half an hour to get a couple coffee and seeing that my draft had been deleted. I would have been quite furious. I have assumed good faith on your part and you should have assume good faith on my part and have seen that this was a sandbox page in which I was collecting a variety of references that would have been used in about 15 articles. If this sandbox page had been deleted, Wikipedia would have lost some incredibly valuable references for articles which have very few references. I recommend that the next time a sandbox page is nominated for speedy deletion, the editor proposing the speedy deletion should actually read the content of the sandbox page. The contents of this sandbox page did not represent anything close to an article. It was simply a collection of references that would be soon inserted into a variety of articles. Best regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  13:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at User talk: Bfpage/sandbox/Vane-Wright. WWGB (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...of you never know what you find when click a name on the Deaths page: Bernie Wolfe. I have tried to clean it up some. Whew! — Wyliepedia 18:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WWGB: you changed the caption to the Gough Whitlam memorial service photo on the ground that the speaker is not Aboriginal, so that this could not be the Welcome to Country. The speaker is Aunty Millie Ingram, performing a Welcome to Country on behalf of the Cadigal people of the Eora nation - I took the photo. A Welcome to Country can be given only by a person of that "country" and Aunty/Uncle is a respectful title given to an Aboriginal elder. Many Australian Aborigines do not look evidently Aboriginal. Wikiain (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB, your interest in BLP issues is well known. I was wondering if you could take the time to let me know how many 'violations' I have on a page I have been developing on-and-off for over a year. User:220 of Borg/Brothers for Life (B4L) is about the Sydney based gang started by convicted murderer Bassam Hamzy.

There have been numerous shootings, some deaths from same, drive-bys and other violent events going back over 2 years. People have been reliably named as charged, but not a large number of convictions. I think I may have to remove the names of those B4L members not yet convicted?

This note is prompted by there having been another B4L related shooting reported overnight. This time Hamzys mother Lola has been shot! [1]. (His aunt was previously shot and a cousin shot dead) There is a possible complication in that there is an African based 'Brothers for Life' group that is a charitable institution IIRC. A hatnote should take care of that, though they don't have a WP page. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	thanks for your efforts on that Sydney article today Gnangarra 13:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E-e-bayer_lover (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my edit, which was probably the most foolish I've ever done. I tried to enhance the readability of the sentence despite knowing that there was possibly no connection between the woman removing her head covering and the siege, and that there had already been much discussion on the issue. I can only assume that after getting up in the morning and doing the edit, I had not been as wide awake as I thought I was. Thanks for picking it up. Akld guy (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop deleting the mention of the origin of the victims as in here. While it may seem irrelevant to you, it has been mentioned by reliable sources for a reason and therefore, it deserves to to be reported. Should you feel the need to discuss it, please use the talk page so that everyone can have an input on this subject. MoorNextDoor (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you nicely not to delete sourced material and to discuss the matter if you feel the need to, yet, you ignored my message and did it again. MoorNextDoor (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you deleted the references for the descent and ethnicity of one of the four or five jewish victims whereas the article still displays five references for the descent and ethnicity of the one muslim victim among all 17 killed by the terrorists? Asymmetrical weight indicates bias. XavierItzm (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 : Content restored. Content without external source is not to delete. Yug (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In short, when other Wikipedia articles are duly cited and themselves contains the sources, it's ok to keep :) Yug (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct me to such a provision within Wikipedia guidelines. WWGB (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't restore RS-supported material, as you did here. Furthermore, for your information it appears that while generally a niqab is not head-to-toe, in some circumstances it is. In any event, please avoid OR edits, involving deletions of RS-supported text. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You removed material that was being discussed here without actually engaging in the discussion. Can you please respond?VR _talk 01:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WWGB. Would you please stop edit warring on Death of Leelah Alcorn. You're up to about six reverts, and may be blocked if you continue reverting. Thank you.- MrX 13:00, 14 January 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WWGB reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - MrX 13:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider replying to my question at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WWGB reported by User:MrX (Result: ). I'm trying to decide if this is a plain 3RR (where you would be blocked unless you agree to stop) or something protected by WP:BLP. Thanks you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving a flower because you are obviously a wonderful editor. I accidentally clicked a wrong button on the Page Curation toolbar and 'poof': just like that I unreviewed an article and you received a message in error. All the best and happy editing. Fylbecatulous talk 15:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it seemed like I'd snapped at you with this summary. Alakzi (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oki, I didn't know. Does the rule apply to every year? Radosław Wiśniewski (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Radosław Wiśniewski[reply]

Yes it does. It is the long-standing consensus of editors that an entry is removed one month after death unless the deceased has own article. Regards, WWGB (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierre_coach_crash

Since I is located near to the investigators, enter the excessive emotions. Need a Rezens.

/International conspiracy. This version works out Prosecutor General of the Royal Albert Second, since 3-year e. With a strong support Police de Fer from North Africa. Foreigners in Flanders are eagerly awaiting the results. Because several of us suspected defective loyalty and an excessive Royalität taken. Yes, and they know how dangerous is it? Management for Drogenmiluhe, Federal Police Russia, the GRU - Killer's and islamiste België, and even the Justice.Stay just a hope, The Royal General Proukurour on the right track come. (Someone by GSM, the bus driver. Called telephone Reported us <Metrotime.be> All GSM calls can trace you.) The members of the victims wait even after results were the investigations of the Prosecutor General UK Belgique. For a civil action is necessarily necessary. Can you imagine? Since 3 o years and still no legal claims to demand a compensation. All they have to in the wiki - Article bring (Complete)./

I will put in discussion Thank you in advance.Igiveyou5 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new link.

Not that I expect you to check.

After all it conflicts with what you do and don't want doesn't it?

--WHRex (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WHRex: What I "do" is revert editors who make dumb edits [2]. WWGB (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any rule, but I think we're spelling, not pronouncing. Shouldn't whatever is inside the quotes there be inside the quotes here? If this is a translation from Arabic, the words for Isis and ISIS are a lot different than they are in English. An exact quote might make it easier for a reader to verify if this tweet happened. The small case difference already caused some confusion at the Language Reference Desk today.

Not a huge deal, I suppose, just trying to remain faithful to the source. Would you be opposed to the square bracket treatment for "ISIS"? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:15, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

See, it seems sometimes I'm the only one who spends time searching for the date of death, scrounging through the depths of the Internet for something, anything indicating the date. And it gets to a point I'm desperate and will use anything. It's like an itch I can't scratch. Ian Michael is one i failed in tracking the DOD, and it's aggravating to no end.

I'm working to refrain from removing the tag until I have legit proof. I use things like Facebook and Twitter as a last resort on occasion as alot of death announcements originate there, allowing the press to copy from there.

RAP (talk) 07:41 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi WWGB. It appears that there is a concerted effort by either full-time staff or consultants to the project to 'sanitise' anything that is put up about the project. After I had a look at the history of edits going back to early last year it became apparent that several usernames are connected to one political party and to each other (through joint 'decisions' made to delete subject pages such as "Captain's Call"). One of the main 'deleters' major contribution to Wikipedia has been 40+ favourable bios of Liberal/NP/CP politicians as well as a handful of bios about ALP politicians that either crossed sides to vote with the Liberal Party or were tainted with corruption allegations. The timing of that person's edits and additions are generally M-F during work hours coincidentally - not on weekends nor after-hours. Perhaps I am too suspicious but some of the changes are identical to emails sent out by a local Liberal Politician. True that does not mean they are being done by that person just highlighting the linkages.

Is there anything that can be done to stop these apparent conflict of interests and sanitisation of the page to reflect only part of the story?

Thanks for your long-term commitment to Wikipedia.A M R Sydney (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB - I wanted to query the edit recently made [Criticism: what the source actually states)].

I had originally put in details (about 250 characters) of what the second call asked for exactly (which part of the specific documents originally asked for in the first call). It then seemed too repetitious directly following on the details of the first call. So instead of having that repetition (although accurate just long winded) I opted to condense the two parts (2nd call and response) as I had.

Do you suggest that I should add the specific detail of the 2nd call and spell it out that the 2nd call was required as none of the documents had been provided in the first call. Or should I change what was written " to declare that none of the documents existed." to "to effectively declare that none of the documents existed." OR should I spell out what the wording you replaced it with means - that is - the Govt was asked for all those missing documents not supplied in the first call for papers. They were specifically requested in the 2nd call and the response was that there were no further docs which at face value suggests that the Govt did not produce a business case, financial analysis, cost/benefit etc?

What do you suggest? regardsA M R Sydney (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• When you have a moment can you please look at my comments above as The Drover's Wife has reappeared (links to Liberal Party demonstrated) and the reasons Drovers Wife is quoting - Original Research is incorrect - the information referenced is from TfNSW documents cited elsewhere in the article. User Mo7838 is also misrepresenting reason for deletions - Majority of NSW Upper House request information, information is not provided, they can only publicise this by asking for information a 2nd time and finally Premier declares information does not exist despite TfNSW documents stating it does.

• Surely this is relevant information concerning the bona fides of the project. This information is accurate, referenced and reinforces issues raised by independent groups and multiple newspaper articles. Isn't that what wikipedia stands for rather than a political party using it for their own political advantage?A M R Sydney (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

118.208.87.165 (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Previously had shown no interest in topic of infrastructure projects in Australia nor Railways in General.

Some of the more pointed efforts. 18:23, 22 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+915)‎ . . Talk:National Union of Students (Australia) 22:42, 22 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+813)‎ . . National Union of Students (Australia) 02:32, 20 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+110)‎ . . Talk:Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015 ‎ (→‎Added POV tag) 02:31, 20 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+490)‎ . . Talk:Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015 ‎ (→‎Added POV tag) 03:03, 12 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+537)‎ . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015 09:22, 10 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,200)‎ . . N User talk:Leuthen ‎ (Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Captain's Pick in Australian Politics. (TW)) (current) ‎ 00:09, 6 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+385)‎ . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leila Abukar ‎ 00:05, 6 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+850)‎ . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leila Abukar ‎ 14:07, 5 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,033)‎ . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leila Abukar 11:26, 3 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-3,059)‎ . . Waverley Park ‎ (rv massive undue weight addition (and for all those paragraphs I'm still not even sure what the dispute is about)) (current) .... but most of addition was the references cited and the actual article detail shown as succinct, accurate and presented in a neutral manner. But did credit ALP politician with decision to over-rule intensive development for the site. 12:36, 7 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+2,188)‎ . . User talk:JTdale ‎ (Notification: speedy deletion nomination of The Betoota Advocate. (TW)) 00:29, 13 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-775)‎ . . m Jeff Seeney ‎ (Reverted 4 edits by 58.106.137.62 (talk) to last revision by The Drover's Wife. (TW)) .... removed cited corruption allegations 13:37, 12 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-1,038)‎ . . m Jeff Seeney ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by 58.106.133.82 (talk) to last revision by 203.27.62.92. (TW)) ... removed cited corruption allegations 05:48, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-2,744)‎ . . Halal certification in Australia ‎ (rvt questionable and at times outright misleading claims - take it to talk) ...misleading reason stated for wholesale deletion of much cited material added by a new inexperienced user who had presented factual and cited costs/revenue about Halal certification - DELETION more POV related than able to be substantiated.A M R Sydney (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She's young enough to be my daughter, but in some countries that's not frowned upon. — Wyliepedia 02:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an experienced editor you should know that it is grammatically correct to put "the" in front of some band names in sentences even if "the" isn't part of the name. Same as in the Eagles and numerous other band articles. Afterwriting (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, how silly of me. True of so many bands like The Wings, The Poco, The Yes, The Oasis, ..... WWGB (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "The" or "the" is used grammatically before the name of a band in sentences depends on the name of the band and the context in which it is used. No one has suggested that the name of the band is The Little River Band. So instead of sarcasm you might instead try web searching "the Little River Band" to see how the band's name is treated in sentences in newspapers and other publications. Afterwriting (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take discussion of this and any other issues to the article's talk page. They will not be resolved by an editing war. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WWGB,

I see that you have added a citation required template to my edit which states the season average and am just enquiring as to why. As with the remaining of the ratings table, I have just followed the lead of similar articles (such as The Block (season 9)) whereby at the end of every week the ratings are added and divided by the number of separate ratings to produce the weekly average, and then the seasonal average is produced by adding all the weekly averages and dividing by the total number of weeks. I do not know how to cite something which is simply a mathematical function. Could you please provide some possible solution to this problem as I am unsure how to.

Thank you,

Forbesy 777 (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and is not permitted in Wikipedia. Unless that figure is quoted in a reliable source, it will have to be removed. By the way, as a mathematician, I can tell you that it is not correct to calculate an average of averages. You have to go back to the daily data and aggregate from there. WWGB (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I will make future edits accordingly. Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WWGB. There is currently a discussion about your edit on Andreas Lubitz. Please refer to this discussion on the article talk page. Please don't discuss this matter on this talk page, or my talk page, but on the article talk page. Thank you for your edits to Wikipedia. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert obviously correct categorization. That amounts to censorship of Wikipedia. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now your rationalizations in edit summary begin to be really weird: [3] (don't talk secrets) (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not weird at all. The terms "murder" and "suicide" are not used anywhere in the article to describe the pilot's actions. Categories are intended to describe the article. WWGB (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "[according to source]...Lubitz deliberately crashed the plane", which is a same think as murder-suicide. Are you really suggesting that editors are not allowed to do elementary and self-evident deductions like equating deliberately flying a plane to the ground to murder? Of course this kind of action (deliberate crash) is a homicide, regardless of any [alleged] insanity of the pilot or any other circumstances like that. Besides, newspapers call it as mass murder and Lubitz a murderer; they are not waiting for any investigation to finish, as the outcome of it is predictable with negligible possibility of any alternative cause to emerge. Therefore the current consensus among reliable sources today is that the action was a mass murder. If this consensus changes, then the article should be changed too. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that you have been reverted by an Admin [4]! WWGB (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So? Admins don't have any special editorial powers to dictate article's content. There is nothing premature about updating the article to match wording commonly used in verified source material. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2015 (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. The discussion is about the topic Jihad Dib. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)[reply]

Disagree with your revert. The idea is to keep sections as long as possible without the page becoming unmanageably large. It was at 97K before tonight's archive action, and that included a very long section that, with a 7-day age, would have been archived in a few days anyway. I don't think 150K is too large. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: My concern is not the overall size of the talk page but the number of discrete sections. I don't think readers need or want to wade through 20+ threads, many of them inactive for more than three days, in order to find what is under active discussion. We should aim to keep high-traffic pages like Talk:Shooting of Walter Scott fresh and relevant, not long and cumbersome to negotiate. Besides, all discussions are still visible through the archive. WWGB (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but I'm not sure three days of no comments constitutes an "inactive" discussion. Useful discussion comes from people who might go more than three days without dropping by. And you can view a discussion in the archive, but you can't add a comment. What would you say to a compromise of 5 days? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: I'm not averse to five days, but if the number of threads blows out because of a new issue, I reserve the right to tighten up. Regards, WWGB (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I guess. Care to do the honors so it doesn't look like an edit war? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss:  Done. WWGB (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure doing business with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting my sandbox in the right place. What did I do wrong?

  Bfpage |leave a message  12:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you left out the colon after the word User. WWGB (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see my red face? Thanks again. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  12:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pines (novel) are not too strong; it's not about you but I do feel passionate about the damage done by AFDs in general and especially upon newbies' early contributions. I do believe you nominated the topic for deletion in good faith, but I also believe the topic does obviously meet the criteria of wp:NBOOKS and hope you can see that and withdraw the AFD nomination. sincerely, --doncram 07:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! for withdrawing and closing the nomination. That saves time/attention of many editors who would otherwise be involved in categorizing the AFD, commenting, etc. I appreciate your allowing the new editor to be given encouragement by the quick resolution, and I followed up at their Talk page. Thanks, sincerely, --doncram 15:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, it just hit me that at the monthly pages, adding a primary header (i.e. here) is pointless with the new TOC system. Example: ==1== In the month, rather than ===1===. Would it not better to have the daily numbers as the primaries rather than secondaries? Something I ponder as my eyes get blearier. — Wyliepedia 06:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CAWylie: I think using ==1== makes the page look really ugly as it puts a line across the page at the end of every date. This spoils the flow of the page and, I think, makes it look too segmented. I prefer the ===1=== version. Just my 2c. WWGB (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, never thought about presentation and flow, which is why I discussed it before trying it out. Thanks. Hope you support my main page edit, though. — Wyliepedia 06:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re this change. Please see my edit summary when I first added his name here. I can take a photo of the relevant page of the paper and send it to you, if you like. It really does say "24.4.1915 – 14.7.2015". Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the same notice from The Advertiser. Please restore his death to 14 July. Cheers -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. WWGB (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster, my dictionary of choice for AmEng, lists "hung" first, then "hanged". I'm with you, "hanged" sounds more natural to me, but per M-W it's incorrect to call editors illiterate for using "hung". One might argue that this is a special case of the word "hang", with different usage, but I haven't| seen any authoritative support for that position. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: I was a bit strong in using "illiterate" but I had already corrected the term several times. There is no wriggle room in this noose: the Oxford English Dictionary is unequivocal that "hanged" is correct [5]. I will leave a hidden message in the article to try and stop further changes. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the M-W definition there is plenty of wriggle room. You're cherry-picking the dictionary that agrees with you and presenting it as the only authority in the world. That's really, really bad practice. I don't really care that much one way or the other, just thought you might be more objective and interested in the wider "truth". Sorry if I was mistaken. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! " I'm not going to let you". Seems like WP:OWN is going on here Sorry, I don't discuss by dummy edit. I think it should be obvious enough that I meant, "I'm not going to let you do that without discussion and consensus", and that I was forced to shorten that due to the limitations of the edit summary field. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]