User talk:Refsworldlee

You created Leif Ljungqvist as a redirect to Assassination of Olof Palme. As far as I can see, the name Leif Ljungqvist does not appear in the target article, which is not very helpful. So I suggest that either one or two sentences about his role in the assassination are added in the target article or the redirect should be deleted. Proofreader (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely fine. However, I don't own the redirect or the target article, so won't object if someone does that but not me. Thanks for pointing that out. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I noticed you corrected some references, possibly that I added, in the Rebecca Kilgore article. I am so new at this that I couldn't figure out what you fixed. I would appreciate any guidance you can give me so that I don't create more mistakes that will waste more experienced editors time. Thanks! Rdog2010 (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The first edit I made added more information than just "she died" - you need as much as possible in a short sentence, including date of death, place of death and age if possible. The edit also added the very important source of the death information - it's crucial that you add a citation for almost every fact you introduce into an article, in other words, prove it is a correct addition by linking to the article you got the information from.

The second edit introduced what is called a reference naming format, whereby you can name the first reference source so that you don't need to repeat the whole thing. If you look closer you will see that's what I've done.

In closing I just want to reassure you that you haven't made mistakes of any kind as such - you have just omitted to add important details to back up your edits. Keep doing the good work and learning. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response! Both helpful and encouraging. Regards. Rdog2010 (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Refsworldlee:, I'm a bit confused as to why you're reverting that edit. I've been on here 20 years and the way the Deaths in... has always worked is WP:RS to confirm a death, but we sometimes use social media as an aid if we cannot get the specific date from a media source/death notice etc. As far as policy is concerned, the context matters section of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources kicks in here. As for the source we're using for his death in general, Soul Tracks... they published the obituary because I emailed them... with the Facebook posts quoted in the email. The same is often the case with many other media sources we use – I'm often the one emailing them, and they go off of social media. That's why it's pointless getting pedantic about social media sourcing for the minor details. It's 2026, most things online stem from social media somehow. Jkaharper (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but social media posts (as you well know) are still not accepted for information used in the list, certainly as a primary source by current consensus - however, that should apply for secondary information used on an anecdotal basis too. Critically though, you've failed to ensure that his Wikipedia article reflects the position in the listing. If the article accepts the date of death, I never argue. Until his article has been changed I'm of the opinion that the list is wrong to assert a DoD. I don't intend to go 3RR over this, but my view on the article matching the list has always been consistent. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The secondary source backing up the DOD keeps getting removed from the page because a previously banned editor (who keeps reappearing but shouldn't be on here) has engaged me in an edit war. That's hardly a sound basis to call it off of... --Jkaharper (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Look, I have no control over what other editors are doing in relation to you, and it's not been apparent that this edit war is going on at all. It is a simple fact that, in terms of common sense, the position shown in the person article should always match the position regarding the entry. I've no doubt some brilliantly reliable international outlet will soon come out and say he died on the 2nd, but we do need to have a little patience on this. I'm sorry the guy or gal is hassling you edit-wise, but that's not an issue for Deaths in 2026. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad it resolved itself, well done LA Times. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, in Australian rules football, the head coach is the main club leadership position, general manager is a backroom admin role. The year he spent at a lower level team is also not very notable, as we don't have a promotion/relegation system, so it isn't considered if equal standing. The-Pope (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll accept your assertion on head coach versus general manager - however, credits don't have to be of equal standing, and there are three article-linked credits allowed per entry, so it should stand. By the way, for such changes in an entry I don't think "tidy up" is a suitable summary. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I left the discussion there. Although, personally, redlinks bother me, I can definitely live with some of them as a tool towards building valid articles. What I was actually proposing was restraint and discernment. But when you tag the main responsible for the situation and their answer is an honestly immature portfolio-like listing of his work, not even bothering to address others' concerns, not a hint of "hmh, that's a new perspective, maybe I'll reflect upon this"... well, I could see there and then that we had hit a brick wall and the discussion would lead nowhere. Guess I'll have to bear with it, like you said, until they get tired of their new toy and start editing less (sorry if I'm being cynical, but that's exactly the vibe I got from them). Keep up the good work and thanks for your constructive efforts. JimboB (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

JimboB I do appreciate your frustration with the situation, and I have shared much of the same feeling in the past. But I can see no workable way of fine-tuning which redlinks should be allowed in and which should not, given that many will admittedly have a baseline notability as they call it. The "article first" model would probably be called out by consensus "vote", as would a "no redlinks without an interlanguage link" idea, which might have been another thing to consider. I admit over time I have become desensitized to redlinks submitted by the main editor responsible, but in closing I'd say I probably still join you in your frustration. Thanks for the contact, and the same wishes to you. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:14, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Refsworldlee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

213.40.121.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host.

• Blocking administrator: HJ Mitchell‬ (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Resolved via WP:IPBE, see below. Yamla (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts @WWGB @Jkaharper @CAWylie @Jmanlucas @Folengo Please note that, because of the above autoblock, I will be unable to make my usual contributions for the forseeable future. Removal of redlinks each day will need to be completed by someone else. Best wishes and good editing to you all. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have granted your account an IP block exemption. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Yamla (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I have granted this for one year. If you still run in to problems once the year is up, please make a new request asking for an extension. --Yamla (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yamla - thank you very much indeed. I think I have been the victim of a business takeover by Internexus of my longstanding valid internet service provider Supanet, who have supplied me with an untainted service for more than 15 years. I can't really comment further on the spam status of Internexus, but I am just grateful to be able to continue my sterling work in Wikipedia as an editor. Thank you again. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Saving Country Music is not a reliable source per WP:A/S. The source was already removed from that article. Also, the Penn Live source is not invalidated simply because it's paywalled. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Duly noted. Though I will be keeping an eye out for a free source for the entry as usual. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your edit summary on Template:Deaths in month lead, could you tell me where you were referring to when you said "posted warnings in each "Death of" article in archives"? I'm not familiar with the Death articles so I don't know where to start looking for that! Thanks. – Mullafacation『talk』 10:56, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi. The edit was carried out because a change of Wikipedia policy meant that using bold type in certain articles was no longer allowed. The warnings are now automatically posted in red type in the mainspace of each article in question when the three apostrophes are detected being used to bold up a piece of type in the template, and only appear in the mainspace after the bolding edit is saved. You are welcome to carry out a test edit on this, provided you make sure that the warning in red type is removed by whatever means necessary afterwards. If I am somehow mistaken on this, you are welcome to revert the change, as long as the warning does not remain in mainspace. Glad to make that clearer for you and others. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:00, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you. That makes sense. I've seen that for templates before, but never like this. Mullafacation『talk』 14:08, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Best wishes and good editing! Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:12, 1 September 2026 (UTC)