User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

I love working with you [email protected], 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)

Over three years ago you noted 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)

@...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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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

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)

@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)

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

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)

@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)

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

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)

@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)

Hello Robert, Thank you for all thank you's! I noticed you undid this 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, Mill 1 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)|

@Mill 1: 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)

OK. Thanks. Mill 1 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Robert, I can see why you undid some of my revisions this weekend, except for this one. I added her again to the day of the year page. She's was a queen for crying out loud! :) Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@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?

	Merry Christmas [email protected]!!
	Hi [email protected], 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)

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)

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)

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)

Hello [email protected]: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 21:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

(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)

@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)

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)

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

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

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)

With all respect, I'm sure you must be aware that film plots are 400 to 700 words. It was 658. Your "tweaking" took it to 842. Please take your concerns to the talk page and please respect WP:FILMPLOT. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you have reverted my edits on the page concerning the actress Miss Estelle Harris. You say that my additions of "Miss" to her name were "unnecessary titles". How absolutely disrespectful!! This modern-day fashion of using only a person's surname in an article or biography about them is shamefully disrespectful to the person concerned. My adding the title "Miss" was simply to give a measure of respect to the description of the lady and her extensive career. How can you possibly think that that is "unnecessary"? It offends me deeply whenever I see or hear an article or report about someone without their title being used, and I am sure that it must certainly offend the person being spoken or written about too. It gives the article or report a very disrespectful tone, and that is the way that the page reads as it now is. I hope that you will now understand my reasons for the edit and perhaps rethink your reversion. Thanking you, Informatus (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Informatus -- Estelle Harris is not a Miss, and calling her that does not add any respect, since she is a married woman and Harris is her married name. It is as simple as that. Quis separabit? 21:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, she is married, but the term Miss is often used for older or matured ladies as a respectful term whether or not they are married. You could also use her married title, Mrs, if you prefer. Either one is preferable to using no title at all and either title would add a tone of respect to the page. As it is the page is still disrespectful in its tone.Informatus (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Informatus: How is the page disrespectful in its tone? It is identical to most actress-related pages. Quis separabit? 18:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia's Manual of Style dictates that we don't use honorifics like that; it is not "shamefully disrepectful" but simply the way people write and speak in the 21st century (some of us have been doing it for much longer than that). --Orange Mike | Talk 00:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This fellow was a famous jazz musician/bandleader in the 1920s-1930s. He was considered "the cat's meow" from coast to coast. I first encountered his name in connection with Gosden and Correll of Amos 'n' Andy fame; before they made it big with that radio program, they were hoping to sell some of their work to him. Ash was responsible for getting Ruth Etting into the right places to be heard; he did the same for a lot of others who became stars.

Have seen photos of him; he was not a matinee idol, but had a shock of long red hair like many of the maestros did. Women went wild over him-there were Paul Ash dolls, scarves and the like which the ladies bought readily. Women stopped at almost nothing to attend his performances. Some were so taken by him, he had been accosted (and even shot at) by jealous husbands. But as you can see, the article is only a stub. It will need to be more than that before I add him into the "mix" at Ruth Etting. As it is right now, it would be hand to understand what Paul Ash discovering her at Marigold Gardens meant to Etting's career. Was just able to begin gathering information about him last night. We hope (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@We hope -- OK. So? Carry on. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Still gathering Ash news stories and need to get them clipped. Trying to work three way with it-Ruth Etting, Martin Snyder and now Ash. ;) We hope (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you edited the 2017 Women's March, and reverted as Point of View: "and especially at his statements and positions regarded as anti-women or in other ways reprehensible." This phrasing was in earlier versions of the article, and has undergone extensive editing. It has been added and reverted several times. I am moving it to Talk for discussion. Thanks for contributing.Bjhillis (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of sourced content because attendance figures are not listed for some entries. Please allow users time to expand the article, rather than removing sourced entries from the article. Expansion takes time, whereas removing content takes seconds. It's unclear why you think such removals improve the article. Thanks for your consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your nice reply on my talk page regarding the list article. North America1000 08:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

As a contributor to Lee Grant an RFC has been started at Talk:Lee Grant#RfC about Lee Grant's date of birth to resolve the dispute over how to present Grant's age. I am leaving you notification so that you have an opportunity to comment. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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 Stutthof concentration camp 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) 00:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for your edits on the article. I don't think it's mistranscribed as being Donaghey. I know Find a Grave isn't a reliable source, but if you look at the family headstone, it lists Gerald and his parents' surname as being spelled 'Donaghey'. In the Bloody Sunday in Derry book, his surname is spelled that way too. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just wondering why you think Lee Smolin, one of the world's leading theoretical physicists, is not sufficiently notable to have an entry on 6 June for his birthday in 1955? His DoB is sourced at his article. If you're in agreement I'll put the entry back. Thanks. 141.6.11.22 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The truth is not "vandalism." This is how and why she was hired at UCB. She was Judith Butler's trailing spouse/partner. It's not illegal. It happens all the time. But it it is what it is and it's relevant in an article on her career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.145.58 (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@212.7.145.58:, was a reliable source provided in support of this career detail? In my experience, yes, partners being offered positions is not uncommon as a part of package to attract high quality academic talent, but it is rarely a detail that is documented in published sources. Bottom line, truth may or may not be vandalism, repending on how it is introduced; even when not vandalism, truth that is not sourced is not encyclopedic at this venue. Cheers, Le Prof [User:Leprof_7272] 73.210.155.96 (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I have the biography of Mohammad Akram Nadwi on my watchlist, and note that you reverted a recent edit, calling it "vandalism". I have no problem with the reversion per se, as the material added was unsourced. But by my reading we have a new user who has gone to the trouble of creating an account (as User:Imtiyaz1993) and who tries to contribute local knowledge. I think Wikipedia should encourage and foster such people, and show them how to work within our rules, not knock them back by accusing them of deliberate damage. Wikipedia:Vandalism defines it as malicious editing; "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Please, when you continue your valuable work of patrolling recent changes, consider how you can bring new users into the community (e.g. with a message on their talkpage, or a mention of Wikipedia:Teahouse in the edit summary), rather than pushing them away. Thank you. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Carbon Caryatid --- thanks for your words of wisdom. I guess, seeing so much genuinely disruptive editing daily, that good-faith but faulty editing get can lumped with the rest. I will try to be more discerning. Quis separabit? 15:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this in the spirit in which it was meant. It must be dispiriting to see so much rubbish. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've just discovered that there are lots of welcome templates (I had only known of a couple), including one for a new user who has added unsourced material. And of course templates for vandalism. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your apology at WP:ANI, I wanted to let you know that it was my decision to lend my thoughts to the incident report, so you didn't do anything wrong. DarkKnight2149 04:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Rms125a, thanks for thanking me! I have a question on Speaker Ryan's photo... which version is better... version 1 or version 2? I feel as though version 1 is too close and small, but that's just my opinion! Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 05:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice much difference but my eyesight isn't the greatest. Just watchlist the page. If anyone changes the images or the sizes or the captions you can see whether or not such changes are for the better or not, although, of course, such things are largely subjective. Yours. Good Night (late here in NYC). Quis separabit? 06:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You are doing two things on the page of Tamil Indian writer Jeyamohan. You are trying to remove red links which I understand and accept. But you are also trying to dictate what is and isn't his notable work, and what his occupation is. This is what I'm pointing out on and ask you re refer Leo Tolstoy's page. It has 4-5 occupations an4-5 notable works. Why isn't a listing allowed for an equally famous Indian writer? Just because a Wikipedia article doesn't exist, doesn't make it a non-notable work.

Also Mr Jeyamohan is the biggest literary author on the Tamil language (spoken by 70 million people), and beyond the writing he has worked with most well known Tamil films in Screenwriting. If I complain about your unnecessary removal of content, you're calling it agitprop. How fair is that? Madhusam (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Madhusam -- We agree on no redlinks in infoboxes, that's a step in the right direction. By removing redlinked and nonlinked entries, which you indicate above that you understand, i am NOT "trying to dictate what is and isn't his notable work". That is why there is an article and not just an infobox.
As far as what "his occupation is, you included a list of occupations, some of which overlap or are redundant ("Novelist, Short story writer, Literary Critic, Essayist, Film Screenwriter, Dialogue writer"). That is why we have categories (i.e. [[:Category:]]).
I regard as agitprop and bad faith your edit summary accusing me of a bias in how I edit European and Indian writers; I didn't use the term "agitprop" to refer to a valid "complain[t] about ... unnecessary removal of content."
Where possible you should simply try to REWORD whatever is objectionable and to gain consensus. Quis separabit? 15:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see: References. X4n6 (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Why was my recent edit disruptive? It was appropriately sourced and based on his public image.--2604:2000:C54E:9F00:1064:29AE:DE53:11D6 (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It is blatantly POV and recentist partisan political commentary that does not belong on an encyclopaedia. Quis separabit? 04:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have trouble understanding what POV editing is. It would be biased to say, "Priebus is a micromanager as Chief of Staff." It is not bias to say, "[r]ecently, Priebus has drawn controversy for his alleged micromanagement and lack of results as Chief of Staff," and then source that comment to two respected media outlets. Rather, it is a statement of current public perception, without taking a side either way. One line does not qualify as recentism, either. Again, I am more than happy to help you learn about the U.S. political system, if you indeed want to learn.2604:2000:C54E:9F00:1064:29AE:DE53:11D6 (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

"Jewish" is a broad term referring to any member of the Jewish Ethnoreligious group. The term Jewish can refer to a person who is ethnically Jewish without following the Jewish religion, and also to people who convert to Judaism without being a member of the ethnicity. To draw a parallel: The Navajo have their own traditional religion. However, a Navajo who does not follow their traditional religion is still a member of a distinct ethnic group. Furthermore, the articles do not simply follow national extraction, they follow ethnic extraction. "African" is certainly not a nationality any more than "European" is, but African-American a valid descriptor because it refers to a distinct ethnic group. Rest assured I know what I am doing in regards to Jewish as a descriptor, seeing as I am ethnically Jewish and I've been learning about this for my entire life. ;) Asarelah (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Asarelah -- I know you are a seasoned editor. When I see an edit you made pop up on my watchlist I usually don't even bother to check unless there's something else of interest. However, I have rarely, if ever, seen the "Jewish" descriptor on the DOY (Days of the Year, birthday, etc.) pages as a nationality. Perhaps occasionally with regards to the rabbinate, but even then rarely as it would be superfluous. Quis separabit? 19:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

So you're okay with me adding "Jewish" in as an ethnic descriptor? Again, its not an "nationality". Nationality refers to the nation that one is a citizen of. In the example of African-Americans, "American" is the nationality and "African-American" is the ethnicity. Asarelah (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Historian butting in - NO - ethnicity and nationality are the same thing - they are not synonymous with "citizenship." A Jew may be a practicing Christian, and still be a Jew, by nationality/ethnicity (never mind that orthodox practicing Jewish people would not consider them so.). A "nation-state" is a state that is comprised of a high degree of the same people/nation/ethnicity - as such, Czech Republic is a nation-state. The U.S.A. is most certainly not. 104.169.18.61 (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As long as it's not a violation of MOS, I guess, although there may be individual instances in the future in which I disagree with it. Quis separabit? 00:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Wasnt trying to be snippy on the Edit page, but she had dual citizenry- which is why I used the artice I used for her death reference.

From the article itself-

"In the 70s Chelsea moved to Sydney and became an Australian citizen. She had a role in Number 96 and then E Street where she met her husband Vic Rooney. Chelsea was also a popular regular on Graham Kennedy’s Blankety Blanks." ^[1]

Regards.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are you removing people from date pages on the basis of them not being notable? If they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page then they are notable enough to be on the date page. Asarelah (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Asarelah -- @Deb's project has been going on for a long time. You just noticed? (See here). Quis separabit? 03:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

In your revision of 21:57, 17 April 2017 of Sean Spicer, you made three edits involving en dashes that don't comply with standard usage or an element of MOS:DASH, "Do not mix en dashes with prepositions like between and from.":

• "From 2003 to 2005" changed to "From 2003-05" (using a hyphen instead of an en dash where the word "to" is required)
• "during 2006–09" changed to "from 2006–09" (I had earlier changed "from" to "during" to avoid the prohibition on using en dash with "from")
• "From 2009 to 2011" changed to "From 2009-2011 (using a hyphen instead of an en dash where the word "to" is required)

An en dash is used to indicate a range, such as a range of of dates, time, amount, or letters of the alphabet. But it is avoided when one expects the word "to" or "and" because of a preceding "from" or "between". In reading "from 2006–09", one reads the "from" and expects "to" to follow. In reading "during 2006–09", the word "during" doesn't create an expectation of another word, so it's OK to use the en dash there.

Cheers, Anomalocaris (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Most birth/death entries for saints have very generic descriptors and avoid mentioning sainthood (see today's Hilary of Galeata, Christian monk). Any idea why that is? I guess it's a posthumous thing but it's also generally the reason they're worth including. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Bob Drewel. Thank you. SounderBruce 21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• @SounderBruce -- this was the source I used. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It's behind a paywall and needs to be properly cited in the article in order to be valid. SounderBruce 22:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you have been removing the "careerhighlights" parameter from Template:Infobox AFL biography. I just wanted to check the reason for that? It is still in use and there has been no discussion I am aware of to discontinue this parameter. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jevansen : OK, but it appears to be rarely if ever used, and in the cases of old-timers and/or deceased players I thought it extraneous. But I'll leave them from now on. Thanks. Quis separabit? 13:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Certainly is a parameter used more for current day players but there's no reason they can't be added to the older blokes, it's just that their articles are slower to progress past stubs. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused by this detail. Do I understand that you are using an OTRS ticket, presumably ticket #2016121910022522, as an objection by the subject to inclusion of the birthdate at all? Or just that it's the subject disputing the accuracy of certain birthdates while not providing correct one to include? Or providing a correct one but not providing a reliable source for it? DMacks (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@DMacks -- What I am saying is that, if you check the Wiseau edit history, going back a while, you will see that his full name (not the same as birth name which I suspect is different but not available), date and place of birth, etc. based on his naturalization application at ancestry.com, have all been deleted or scrubbed, based upon an apparent complaint filed by subject with OTRS. I have never seen the ticket. I think you need special access, anyway, to see those but that is what @Ronhjones stated in his edit summary (see , , ). Quis separabit? 02:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Per those edits and Ronhjones's explicit statement on the article talk-page, the OTRS is only about the name, not the date. DMacks (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@DMacks: OK. Thanks. Quis separabit? 11:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Katrina Kaif was born on July 16. Why do you not accept it? Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Neel.arunabh -- I do accept it but there are stricter criteria for being included in DOTY listings, yes even if the subject has a Wikipedia article. This is so the lists can be trimmed and maintained before they become unmanageable. See here Yours truly. Quis separabit? 02:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt if it's intentional on your part, but I wonder if I could ask you to consider the manner of such editing by you which sometimes can make your edits very difficult to follow? If you are making minor edits that for example are simply reordering the form of existing citations, or, say, changing punctuation from i.e., Trump’s to Trump's, could you consider separating such form edits from text edits that contain more significant editorial changes? The problem is that when you make and mix a substantial number of both types of edits, that can make it very difficult to follow exactly what you've done, given the Wikipedia visual presentation of those changes. In the case of the latter textual edits, could you also break up those edits that are interspersed sometimes through many sections of an extensive article, into separate edits? I've at times spent hours working through the mass of those edits trying to figure out what you've done that has taken you perhaps only a few minutes to accomplish. Some might be entirely uncontroversial while others might demand involvement in a consensus process. I don't think this would require a significantly greater amount of time than you're already spending on these edits and it would be very helpful to other editors. Thanks so much for your assistance with this. Activist (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"No consensus for removal of categories". If you had viewed the talk page as I recommended in my edit, you would have seen there was a discussion about removing pseudoscience in favor of pseudoscienctific psychologists. There was no discussion about the other categories, because they were INSERTED without discussion. 65.51.243.195 (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 163.4 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677 -- OK. Thanks. Quis separabit? 22:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove links from articles (as you did in this edit) just because they are dead links. Dead links are still useful, since someone may have access to their original content and since they can often be replaced by archived content. It is better to have a dead link than a {{cn}} tag. See WP:DEADREF: "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working." I see that you also deleted the publication date for a citation to an article in The Guardian (in the same edit). That doesn't seem proper. I checked the source and the date that you removed was correct. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@BarrelProof -- even if they have been tagged as "permanent dead links"? OK, if you say so. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest to think of a dead link as similar to a citation to an offline source (or a source that's behind a pricey paywall). Sources don't need to be on the web. It's certainly nice if the source is accessible on the web, but it isn't mandatory, and it's certainly better to have a citation to an article that is no longer available online than to have no citation at all. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi! A few months ago, you added year of birth/year of death info to Chalam (see this edit). I'm looking for a reference and can't find anything. Of course, I'm limited to searches in the Latin script and one has to assume that there are better references in Telugu. If you find such a source (assuming of course that you know Telugu!), I'd appreciate it if you can add it to the article. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Rms125a. It would be nice if you could give your opinion on this discussion. I saw your name from Mill 1's talk page and it seems that you are sourced as an expert on this. Many thanks :) --Rochelimit (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for nominating Betty Harford for deletion. It is high time Wikipedia stopped having articles on every low level actor who ever appeared on the silver or small screen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll recheck, but it appears you deleted all deaths in June and July. I can't fix it on my mobile. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, just a bug in diff. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin -- so everything is OK, Arthur? Yours, Quis separabit? 02:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, everything is OK. My display of your diff showed those months lost, but displays of diffs including yours were clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't like HuffPo, but how about NBC News and The Hill (via WaPo)? I suggest you revert that last edit. There's no argument about what party he belongs to except from one particular Twitter account that is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

And NPR. I can keep looking and we can WP:OVERCITE to your heart's content. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you got under Ina Vukic's skin . Tisk tisk. 23 editor (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

He didn't have any specific accusers, But his tweets were discovered by some people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.180.75 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: (Trevor Plouffe#Minnesota Twins), if you let me know which statements in particular you think require a citation, I will do my best to find appropriate sources. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:People excluded from entering the United States, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GZWDer (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Your recent deletion of an entire section of this article is outrageous, as is the fact that you used an obscenity in your edit summary. Please stop with the disruptive editing. SunCrow (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@SunCrow -- "BULL" is not an obscenity. Had I used the full eight-letter word for which it is an abbreviation then you might have a colorable claim to the word being an obscenity, although why you would bother is beyond me. More to the point, I removed text which violated WP:POV and WP:OR, and if the violations are restored, I will revert again and bring it to ANI. BTW: We don't refer to subjects of article by forename ("Rachel") in the body of an biographical article unless it is necessary to distinguish an individual from another person with a similar name or the same surname. Quis separabit? 01:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You didn't look at this very carefully. I am not the editor who included Noerdlinger's first name. In fact, I fixed that problem in several places. In any event, cutting out an entire section is not the way to deal with that. If you believe that this material violates various policies, please take the issue to the talk page. Until you do, the material should stay in. Also, your behavior is infantile. SunCrow (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@SunCrow -- It isn't really infantile. When one has been editing since 2005 -- which I really wouldn't be doing or be permitted to do if I were infantile -- one becomes inordinately concerned about the endless attempts at whitewashing or neutering or hagiographing biographical articles that attract attention over a wide spectrum of political, racial, religious, ethnic, and national categorizations. I update from the last stable edit I find and I apologize for incorrectly assuming you were the editor who was POVing the article of an individual considered by many to be some sort of heroine or mistreated minority (needless to say, she is neither) with rudimentary apologetics. Sometimes the innocent get caught in the crossfires. Please feel free to review the diff and see what you think. Yours, Quis separabit? 02:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Eric Forman, Michael Kelso, Steven Hyde, and others—have been proposed for merging with List of That '70s Show characters. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 15:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anurag Kashyap (spelling). Since you had some involvement with the Anurag Kashyap (spelling) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Pola Negri
• Languages: Polski should be near the top since she is Polish, can you fix that ?
• 69.181.23.220 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. Ms Hill was born in Santa Barbara, USA, as per birth records of the State of California, accessed and recorded by the LDS. LDS birth research is a reliable source. Check the discussion near the bottom of her talk page, please. Tapered (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, though I am just trying to ensure Wikipedia remains uncensored and WP:CONSENSUS is followed. I think that Hylton's releasing of a new book (A Little Piece of Light) may have caused an uptick of activity on the page, which may cause issues as (per a book review by Susan Sheehan of the Washington Post) the book contains a fair amount of "ammending". More eyes on the article would be welcome, as always with contentious issues--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rms, here, you reverted one edit of an IP, but it left the other edit behind. This is confusing for the rest of us. Please turn on "Twinkle" under your preferences, which gives you rollback buttons that you can use to revert all the dubious edits at one go. All the best! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Alison Lundergan Grimes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Rms, I'm sorry, but I agree with that removal--it's not worth warring over. We can't document every thing everyone says. BTW I remember reading this article, which makes it both more mundane and more bizarre. Take care, Drmies (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi [email protected]. I wanted to let you know that I removed thefamouspeople.com as a source in Jolie Gabor. Looks like you added it a while ago . It's likely they got some of the information from Wikipedia, and the website generally isn't reliable. (Discussions here and here). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Come on Rms125a, "why not add Antifa which threatens genuine journalists? Democratic propaganda worthy of the SPLC" is a ridiculous claim to make, in an edit summary or elsewhere. You're practically inviting someone to slap a DS warning for American Politics on your page and seeking redress for those POV comments. And the summary was wrong in other ways as well--you weren't removing categories, as I initially thought, but "See also" links. If the subject had been categorized as "journalist killer" or something like that I'd have been with you, but these are related articles, and if a dude gets bodyslammed as a journalist, then Safety of journalists is a reasonable topic to link to. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Rms125a, Notwithstanding the criminal trial, Rep. Gianforte reached a civil settlement with the victim of his assault that included a donation to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Please, before you revert this again, visit Talk:Greg Gianforte and explain your edit to revert this "see also" link to Committee to Protect Journalists. The Committee to Protect Journalists is specifically mentioned in the article and should be restored as per WP:NAVLIST and MOS:SEEALSO in the Manual of Style which states that "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I have restored this "see also" section link to the Committee to Protect Journalists to the article. Could we please discuss this there before you revert it again? Thank you, Critical Chris

Hello [email protected],

The ANI conversation seems to have come to an end. That conversation revealed some deeply troubling behavior on your part. You seem to have a serious problem complying with BLP policy, and you seem especially inclined to commit BLP violations with regards to African-Americans, where you like to shoehorn negative information about their relatives into those articles. Another example of that right here on this talk page is Rachel Noerdlinger, where you wrote "Sometimes the innocent get caught up in the crossfire". Consider this a warning. The next time you commit a BLP violation, you will be blocked for a very long time. So, correct your behavior now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any interest in the article in question (about the NFL player), but isn't it normal to discuss "notable" incidents regarding the "non-notable" sibling or parent of a notable person in the article for the notable person? How is this a "BLP violation"? Jrheller1 (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not normal--not normal at all. And if such things are added (I speak in general) it's worthwhile looking at what is being added and to what kinds of articles. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Surely it is very common to include interesting facts about the parents or siblings of a professional athlete in the article for the professional athlete. For example, the article for NBA player Isiah Thomas briefly mentions that his father was a WWII veteran wounded in the battle of Saipan. The article for NFL quarterback Steve Young states that both of his brothers played quarterback for BYU. Are you saying these things should not be included in the articles? Jrheller1 (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It is one thing to briefly mention something; it is another to include multiple paragraphs on the crimes committed by someone else using sources that don't even mention the subject of the article where the subject had minimal involvement in it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Suppose a professional athlete had a sister who faked her own kidnapping and this faked kidnapping and consequences of it were in the news. Should this be mentioned in the professional athlete's article? Personally, I wouldn't really care if it were in the article or not. But I would consider someone adding the story to the article a "good faith edit" rather than a "BLP violation". Jrheller1 (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jrheller. I don't see a problem with the general case if the sourcing is good enough. I've edited Tucker Carlson which dedicates a section to an unflattering controversy about his non-notable brother, and the sources are marginal. Should that be removed? D.Creish (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that trivial incident belongs in that article, D.Creish, but the proper place to discuss that is Talk:Tucker Carlson. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Albanian Righteous Among the Nations 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/List of Albanian Righteous Among the Nations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Catrìona (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi from Greece, I have read the debate about S. Miles real name that took place about a year ago. Are you still interested in this? I would be more than happy to share my findings on this issue with you. Best wishes. 46.103.31.40 (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, please check here the situ Talk:Zsa_Zsa_Gabor#Edit_request_8...I don't know if the IP will answer,but the concern seems fair..by or for?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC))

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

[email protected],
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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

How are you doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:D90:C8E0:CAB:FA24:9CFE:E77B (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Rms, it would be helpful if you would not remove the spaces separating citation template parameters ... I put them there intentionally because it is very hard for me to read, edit, and keep updated the citations without the space. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Call me Robert. OK, sorry. Very old, bad habit. Trying to break it. Sorry. Yours. [email protected] 15:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert ! I have old eyes :) And thanks for the good copyedits-- there is a lot to keep up with! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Suncoast Community High School.

Sorry if this is over the top. I don't know if simply tagging you would notify you. BladeRikWr (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

We can fix this ourselves. I explained what the issues are, now you just have to fix them. Do you have something against me and are opposed to working with me, or what? Notrium (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Notrium :: I find you impossible to work with. DO NOT violate 3RR and do not leave me any more messages; this is becoming harassment. I am going off Wikipedia now and am not sure when I will return. Seek assistance at DR at ANI. [email protected] 17:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for helping out in the Tamara Sujú article. I was wondering which part of the MOS advises against skeleton infoboxes, so I'll watch out for future articles. Many thanks in advance! --Jamez42 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a distinct feeling that the editor known as Notrium has been here before. Any thoughts? GregorB (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

RMS: Thanks for your 'thanks' just now. Hope I've judged the situation correctly. (see here) I've tried to be as fair to both sides as I could. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes -- Yeah the Serbian genocide during World War II strikes some empathetic people hard. It was scarily mideval right in the middle of the 20th-century, and the ratlines and the Peróns, et alia. I try to avoid the topic but I also watchlist certain pages which may attract negative activity. So, maybe we will run across each other again. Yours, [email protected] 23:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI. GregorB (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you give an example of when I violated some of those guidelines? Notrium (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I saw "ip moved page" and jumped too quickly on that. I don't see any issues with the redirect to Alice. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I had only just noticed this article, when it was linked to the Alice Mariott page. I had intended to expand the James Henry Marriott article shortly. I am sad to see that it has become a redirect. As you will have noticed, I had just begun to work on it by adding an image and commonscat etc. I have now userfied an earlier version of the James Henry Marriott article, and I guess I shall have to undo the redirect when I have completed the expansion. Please my I suggest that you discuss potential redirects on the article's talk page when there is evidence of very recent editing? Storye book (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Niclas Fronda 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/Niclas Fronda until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Wgolf (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What's up with this edit? That comment you added about Wendy Davis was inappropriate at best. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Rms125a, this will be now my third request that you stop altering citation formatting in this manner. I fill citation templates in this way so that I can read the text and edit around it; I find it impossible to sort out a wall of text and code when the spaces are removed. There is no technical reason for this removal; I ask again that you please stop doing this. It is frustrating to have to revert your work over what may seem to be a trivial matter to you or others, but these changes make my article work harder, and when you do this, I have to spend a lot of time trying to sort out your good and helpful edits from the needless removal of spaces. Thanks for understanding, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Rms, tell me you were making a poorly-considered joke that fell flat before it even took off in this edit. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies :: Can't lie and say it was a joke, nothing to joke about when people have been murdered -- but I don't claim to know all the facts, which are still being investigated. I was merely hypothesizing. I am not denying the hatred that caused the horrific shootings in NZ but I think, given the political realpolitik, that jumping to conclusions, especially with so much spilled blood, is a really bad idea and poor journalism. Have they even named the perps yet? The incident occurred today (NZ time) and there is no need to jump to politically convenient conclusions, which may not be entirely accurate. Look at the Nick Sandmann on The Mall disastrous snafu when the media jumped to conclusions. And this, given the spilled blood, is infinitely more serious. [email protected] 16:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

He had been named and arrested, and his accomplices too. The livestreaming had taken place. The "manifesto" had been found. I don't know where on earth you get the idea that "far-right extremism" is somehow a "politically convenient conclusion"--that sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me, just like that idea that there are "false flag" operations. Are you SERIOUSLY pondering the thought that, I don't know, Antifa, or Kenyan Obama, or AOC are getting a white dude with a machine gun to kill a few dozen people so they can make the alt-right look bad? In what world does that happen? And what does this have to do with the parents of an entitled kid seeking over $500 million in damages cause their boy got his face in the news? Even if something there was misreported or misinterpreted, that's not "false flag". I'm all about good faith, and I've known you for quite a while, but I am wondering if we live in the same world. And yes, suggesting "false flag" IS joking around, because it trivializes the causes and the effects. Wake up: there is no false flag. There are no chem trails. Etc. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies
A)*In the manifesto he [TARRANT] describes himself as previously a "[[communist]]", an "[[anarchist]]", a "[[libertarian]]", but then turned to "racist", and "[[Ecofascism|eco-fascist]]" concerned with [[global warming]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.itv.com/news/2019-03-15/new-zealand-suspect-says-he-is-racist-eco-fascist-who-is-mostly-introverted/|title=New Zealand suspect Brenton Tarrant ‘says he is racist eco-fascist who is mostly introverted’|website=ITV News|language=en|access-date=15 March 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/what-the-christchurch-attackers-manifesto-tells-us.html|title=What the Christchurch Attacker’s Manifesto Tells Us|last=Weissmann|first=Jordan|date=15 March 2019|website=Slate Magazine|language=en|access-date=15 March 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Bolt |first1=Andrew |title=Mosque Shooting In New Zealand. Man Dead |url=https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/mosque-shooting-in-new-zealand-many-dead/news-story/ceac4d0c5f92a32d2c62754c74d4ca30 |website=Herald Sun |accessdate=15 March 2019}}</ref>
B)* ''"He had been named and arrested, and his accomplices too."'' -- UMMM, what "accomplices"??
C)* ''And what does this have to do with the parents of an entitled kid seeking over $500 million in damages cause their boy got his face in the news?'' -- a kid from Covington, Kentucky, harassed by the Black Hebrew Israelites and the lowlife thug Nathan Phillips and his fellow thugs because he dared to be on The Mall despite being white and pro-life, and then vilified by the mainstream media and Hollywood with doctored footage of the incident, is "entitled"? Unlike, I guess, say, Tony Podesta, Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Maggie Williams? (All immunized by Comey and/or Mueller in exchange for nothing.) I hope the kid from Kentucky gets every penny he and his lawyers are demanding.
[email protected] 03:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) What's with all the nowiki? Do you go in for being unreadable, or do you just not look how it came out? Bishonen | talk 12:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC).

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This notice is to advise you that you are now subject to a topic ban applying to the subject of politics, as well as from all biographies of living persons whether political or not, across all namespaces, broadly construed. This ban is enacted as the result of a community discussion, and the restriction is logged here. Note that violations of your restriction will lead to more severe sanctions, which may include your account being blocked from editing. If you have questions you can ask on my talk page or at the administrators' noticeboard. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked you for pervasive, abusive editing while logged out over a very long period of time (we're talking about thousands of logged-out edits), including violations of your recently-imposed topic ban. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be glad to create the next archive page and archive wherever you want for you, just give me a section name to archive upto and ping me if you want. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kushaba Moses Mworeko 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/Kushaba Moses Mworeko until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Quick facts Ten years! ...

Awesome

Ten years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexander Gilmour 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/Alexander Gilmour until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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) 08:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The article Herbert Ditty has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NPOL. High Sheriff or Lord Mayor of Belfast are not automatically notable posts. Fails WP:GNG. Could be redirected to Ulster Protestant Action.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/[email protected]. Thank you. Mountain Battles (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Musicians from Amarillo, Texas has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The article Stuart Reid (Scottish historical writer) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cristyne Lategano and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 2#Cristyne Lategano until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Star Mississippi 03:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Natalie Visart (Q3336413) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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 "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 deleted 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. Fram (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Double dames has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of women holding multiple British damehoods 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/List of women holding multiple British damehoods until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Keivan.f^Talk 16:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:Irish social commentators has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - car chasm (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Hopel Brown 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/Charles Hopel Brown until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

-- LWG ^talk 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The article Morag McLaren has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Can't find anything that suggests Morag McLaren is notable. The only source in the article is very weak.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guiy de Montfort de L'Amaury 22:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Morag McLaren 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/Morag McLaren until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Guiy de Montfort de L'Amaury 00:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Goran and Zoran Damjanović has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 9 § Goran and Zoran Damjanović until a consensus is reached. Joy (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Goran Damjanović has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 9 § Goran Damjanović until a consensus is reached. Joy (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Zoran Damjanović has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 9 § Zoran Damjanović until a consensus is reached. Joy (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The article Jason Beckford-Ball has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable magazine editor

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)