User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com/Archive 14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, so the sentence word "Securities Act of 1934" need to change as "Securities Exchange Act of 1934", since is a red link? SA 13 Bro (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Quis separabit? / Rms125a@hotmail.com,

I wrote you a response under my talk page but I am not sure whether the system will alter you to this. As you warmly noted, I am relatively new as an editorial user (though I am no beginner as a frequent reader!). So just in case, I am responding here as well.

I noted three reasons to undo the long quotation edits on the page for Wendy Brown. The quote was moved from a footnote into the main body of the article. Here are a number of reasons why the quote does not belong there in the body:

1 The quote is from the magazine "The Nation" and was written as a kind of polemic for this (public and political) readership. It therefore does not have the same kind of status as Brown's numerous publications (in books and articles) that intervene into important debates in feminist theory. (This is, after all, an article on a political philosopher and section entitled "Thought and Overview of Work.")

If this is not convincing, I hope some of the following points might be, for they seem to be even more important considerations to me:

2 The quote is from 1990, five years before the book States of Injury (1995) was even published. It therefore should not be tacked on to the end of a section that is dedicated to Brown's 1995 book. This neither makes sense as a way of organizing the information in an academic article, nor does it make sense in an encyclopedic entry. Moreover, the citation and reference for this quotation does not have a link to the original magazine article, which means that it is impossible for someone to click on and read the piece to understand its context -- and most importantly, the ways that it does or does not correspond to the more developed positions articulated in States of Injury (1995).

3 The quote is best characterized less as an argument of her own than as an ad hominem and polemical attack on MacKinnon. This does not disqualify it as a possible Wikipedia entry, of course. But it would be better placed under a section on Debates or Interlocutors or something of the like. Now that I think about it, the quote would best fit under a "Criticism" section on MacKinnon's page. (I could place the quote there, where it would seem more fitting.

Thank you, Quis separabit?, for the welcome, the suggestions, and for your edits. I hope that these are convincing reasons to either keep the quote in a footnote or, if it seems better, to delete it from the page and place it elsewhere -- under debates in feminism or under the MacKinnon page.

Best, Politikundtheorie (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Politikundtheorie: "The quote is best characterized less as an argument of her own than as an ad hominem and polemical attack on MacKinnon. This does not disqualify it as a possible Wikipedia entry, of course. But it would be better placed under a section on Debates or Interlocutors or something of the like. Now that I think about it, the quote would best fit under a 'Criticism' section on MacKinnon's page. (I could place the quote there, where it would seem more fitting."

Thank you for your very kind words. I think your suggestion (above) is quite a good idea. I will leave it in your capable hands unless you want me to do it. Apologies for any inference that you are/were a beginner editor. The only way to know how long any editor has been editing is by looking at his or her contribution history, which I don't recall doing, so that was not my intent. But I have learned over the last dozen years or so that sometimes when posting messages on Wikipedia I need to adjust my Freudian slip (LOL). Thanks again for your kind words. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Quis separabit?! I will make the addition to the page now. Warm wishes, Politikundtheorie (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Gerry McKenna requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.gerrymckenna.co.uk/index.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I also found and removed some copyvio on the article Miriam Hederman O'Brien. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed. Thanks, @Diannaa. Quis separabit? 15:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Surprised to see an experienced user adding a WP:copyvio. What I left should be alright. The other needs to be rewritten from scratch.Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I know. I was rushing last night while half-asleep. Lesson learned. Sorry. Quis separabit? 15:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've checked the page and it's clear of copy vio now. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly not standard to include the maiden name in the lead of an article about a woman - I just checked several and one of them had her "birth name" because it was much different than the name by which she was known, but none had "nee" - so I'm going to re-revert it. But we should discuss it at the article, not at each other's talk pages. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I've partially undone your edit to Bill Parry (politician) to restore compliance with MOS:DATERANGE. Not a biggie, but I thought I should let you know. Schwede66 05:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a friendly note, I know it was late on a very emotional day, but it's best to avoid posting political opinion not directly related to practical questions of how to improve an article.

Cheers

Boynamedsue (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert, Again thanks for all the thank you's! To give you and other DOY members some idea on present and future activities I wrote this status update
Have a good weekend! Emiel (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that you'd worked to clean up this article, so I thought you might be interested in this: When I read it today, I realized that there was a inaccurate description of one of those involved. Willie Tate was not in a California prison in 2015 when Pinell got killed. It was a news report in error, confusing another inmate with the same name, as being the one from the 1971 escape, and it may not have been corrected everywhere. I checked the inmate locator to see if he might have been sent back to prison but he is not listed as currently being in a California prison. Activist (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 12:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You added a neutrality tag to this article a couple years back. Why? Srnec (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Srnec -- I removed tag upon review. Thanks. Quis separabit? 12:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You reverted my entry of Kevin Warwick on the basis that it is an "insufficiently globally notable entry". Is there an official list or is it just your opinion? I checked and the Kevin Warwick page receives daily viewing figures of say 300 to 500. Meanwhile a cursory glance shows that Jo Duffy, also 1954, tops out at 16 per day and Jerry Beck, 1955, tops out at 34. In terms of views therefore your modification would appear inappropriate. Look forward to your response. TexTucker (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I did a further bit of homework! For that date there are presently 16 entries (not including Warwick) in the 1950's. So I compared views etc. Warwick's average daily views are 328. Of the 16 others, 5 have average figures higher than this and 11 have lower figures. In fact 4 have single figure averages. 10 of the 16 are Americans, which probably supports the Callahan & Herring argument. Unfortunately none of the 16 are scientists (as is Warwick), several are actors and/or sports people. Of course this is by no means conclusive, but ... TexTucker (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@TexTucker -- Hi. The cleanup of the Births and Deaths section of the Days of the Year project is being carried out to ensure that the lists to do not become unmanageable by removing entries with 0-4 articles in other languages, as well, of course, as red-linked and redirect entries. We all make mistakes and if I erred and if Warwick does qualify, based on the above, then my apologies and feel free to restore Warwick to the list. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for that - very interesting! In fact of the 16 pages previously mentioned, only 7 have more than 4 articles in other languages, 5 of which were the 5 that had more daily views than the Warwick page. The Warwick page has 16 articles in other languages so it appears to pass the test. I accept your apologies and wish to thank you for this info for your swift reply. I will reinstate the page and point to this discussion on your talk page.TexTucker (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, it's me again. The bit about SEATO disbanding was there for years until someone pulled it a couple hours ago, and (while the entry itself could use some spicing up) it's far more significant than most of the stuff that populates the DOTY event lists. Please reconsider your rejection. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I was aware, to be included on the WP birthday list, it is only required for the person to have their own WP article. Doesn't being notable enough for WP mean the people are notable enough for the list of birthdays? Or is there some policy I am not aware of? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 20:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ -- the days of the year pages, from January 1 through December 31, are routinely trimmed to keep them from becoming unmanageable as part of @Deb's globalism project, thus a higher criterion of notability is required. Quis separabit? 20:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• And what are those criterion? With all due respect there is no way you could have analyzed all the entries on the list in the short time between my edit and yours. It seems like you arbitrarily chose some to delete while leaving others which are just as if not more unnotable. There are 366 dates and it seems to me like there needs to be a centralized guideline clearly indicated on the pages, or we get arbitrary enforcement, or judgment calls on who is or is not notable ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 06:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ -- the cleanup of the Births and Deaths section of the Days of the Year project is being carried out to ensure that the lists to do not become unmanageably long by removing entries for celebrities with 0-4 articles in other languages.

If any of the entries do in fact qualify and were mistakenly removed under the above criteria then apologies and feel free to restore them. Quis separabit? 06:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"There are 366 dates and it seems to me like there needs to be a centralized guideline clearly indicated on the pages, or we get arbitrary enforcement, or judgment calls on who is or is not notable" -- I agree to a certain extent. If you have any suggestions on how to improve the process then let @Deb know on her talk page. Quis separabit? 06:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You've been reverted. Please don't expect others to find citations you yourself could otherwise find. Tag bombing like this is of no help to the project. Cassianto^Talk 14:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add AFD tag to Slim Jxmmi discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert,
For some time now I've concerned myself trying to lift the quality of the DOY- and Year-pages to a higher level, focussing on the pre-1700's. Because of that I now have a pretty good understanding what is notable or not.
You may know that I created an application to identify biographies that were missing from the DOY-pages. From 1600 onwards I noticed that most notable persons are already present in the DOY-pages. I also noticed that a lot of not so notable persons are stated; many articles are stubs or have very little content.
For fun I generated a few tables stating per date a corresponding bio in that century. Examples:
Births per date, period 1600 – 1799
Deaths per date, period 1600 – 1799
As you can see the size of the article (in number of characters) is also stated. Although I realize that character count is in no way a criterium for notability, it can be used to identify bio's that have no place in the DOY pages.
For instance in the 1st table have a look at Bastiaan Govertsz van der Leeuw (DoB 11 January). The limited bio size (1496 letters only) seems to suggest that he should not be stated in January 11#Births. I have many other examples.
I could add code to my application in order to generate a table that would list persons that very probably have no place in a DOY-page.
Criteria:

1. Article is a stub OR
2. YoB/YoD > 1500 AND Number of characters < 2000

Before I devote some time to it I would like your thoughts on this. Would you be willing to use the proposed table as a tool to delete existing entries from the DOY-pages?
Cheers Mill 1 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Good ideas, @Mill_1 -- take 'em to @Deb as I am not going to be dealing with DOY-trimming and review. I deleted all the DOY pages from my watchlist which was close to 4000. Too many watchlist articles made me miss updates I should have caught. Also, DOY trimming can be stressful. I intend to concentrate on other things, at least for now, but please keep doing your best. Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I take it that @Deb is your successor then, in a way? I'll repeat my proposal on her Talk page.
Again, Robert thank you for all your hard work. You are my fav deletionist! Mill 1 (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words but @Deb is assuredly NOT my successor. I was but following her example, as best I could. Thanks again for picking up the gauntlet. Hope the work proves at least somewhat satisfying. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

The personal discussion between you and User:Muboshgu at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Manufacturing_council has gone on long enough. The thread was closed because it is no longer focused on improving the article, and there is no need for either of you to continue to respond to each other's perceived personal attacks. Wikipedia:No personal attacks sums it up pretty well: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Thanks, Dlthewave (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: I appreciate that. As I said, I have never edited a closed thread in all the years I have been editing. In this case, the other editor asked me a direct question on a topic that is obviously of paramount importance to many if not most Americans, and which I felt needed to be answered. They must have replied while I was off-wiki (NYC=EST). I am sure such a scenario will not recur. Yours, Quis separabit? 17:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

(referencing an edit that you performed while as an IP) Please refrain from altering references to County Londonderry to read County Derry, and also do not put inaccurate statements in article that County Londonderry did not exist at that time as you did on Henry Conwell. There has never been a county offically called County Derry in the history of Ireland. County Londonderry was created in 1613 from County Coleraine. There has never been a County Derry and that is a purely colloquial term for County Londonderry. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 22:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: OK, thanks. Quis separabit? 23:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't add HTML comments to articles, as you did here, except in cases where they provide useful information to other editors that ought not to be visible to readers. When you do it on talk pages it's irritating but harmless, but adding content that you obviously know is unencyclopaedic to article space surely only hinders the work of building an encyclopaedia. Best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts -- OK. Apologies for this long-belated and overdue response. (I evidently elided over your relatively brief message when I was distracted by longer messages with bright pretty colors that caught my attention.) Thanks for the advice. Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year to you and yours. Yours, Quis separabit? 15:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. A belated happy holidays and a happy new year to you too. All the best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello can you upload this image https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0brahim_Erkal#/media/File:Ibrahim.erkal.jpg

and update image to here İbrahim_Erkal <<<<<<<<<<<<< --Gyan333 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gyan333 -- Sadly, believe it or not, I don't know how to upload images to Wikipedia, so I never do. I only just barely managed to learn how to scan my photo so Facebook would not cancel my account. Once or twice, if an image in one article could be used in another I copied it. I am a Luddite pretty much regarding much of cyberspace. It's true. If I didn't want to or had a reason for not doing so I would tell you. Sorry. You can ask @Alison, she's known me long enough. LOL. Quis separabit? 02:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I saw you're not sure about the day of birth of Joan Crawford and his brother Hal LeSueur. I'm on Ancestry.ca and I didn't find the birth certificate for Joan Crawford, but I found the birth certificate for his brother. He was born on 326 Rivas Street in San Antonio, Texas on September 3, 1903 but on his birth certificate he has not yet a given name. His parents are Tom and Anna LeSueur. If it's your address e-mail and if you want I can send you a screen capture of his birth certificate. And it is on FamilySearch but you can only see the names and it is misspelled. It is written Lisneur instead of Lesueur because on the act the e seems an i and the u looks like an n. Here is the link on FamilySearch -> . Sincerely. --Danielvis08 (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Re-hello

In fact on the web you can see it on this link . --Danielvis08 (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Danielvis08 -- Yes, I have seen a copy of the same 1903 birth certificate to which you refer, on Ancestry.com. But Hal LeSueur's year of birth is still a puzzler as the 1910 census which gives his age as 8 in April 1910, and the age on his marriage registration (to Kasha Haroldi), dated September 6, 1931, which gives his age as 30 years old -- both the census and the marriage document are also available at ancestry.com -- both clearly indicate 1901. I don't know the reason for the discrepancy but for now let's leave both years. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

In England and Wales, whether a person has died (in a suspicious, unnatural or unexplained death) from suicide or not, is usually only formally and properly established, concluded or determined by someone called a coroner, in something called a Coroner's Inquest ... until the Inquest on the matter of the death of the late Carl Sargeant AM has been concluded, I would suggest that reports of suicide from even from such eminent and respectable journals as the Mirror, the Guardian, the Socialist Worker and the Morning Star should not be misused here in order to "jump the gun" before the coroner (and his jury, if there is to be one) has actually have the chance of finishing doing his (or their) job under the Coroners Act 1988 (1998 c. 13) and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (2009 c. 25) . "From an unconfirmed suspected suicide", not "from suicide". (Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (1981 c. 49) , which also covers the work of coroners and Coroners' Courts, the maximum penalty according to Section 14(1)(2) is a fine not exceeding £2,500 or 2 years' imprisonment, or both. : "Commenting on the results of an inquest could prevent a future criminal trial as the defendant may not be able to get a fair trial.") --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@87.102.116.36 Fine, but why are you contacting me? I reviewed my edits (see here) and I didn't make any changes re nature/circumstances of death. Unless you are referring to the following text::::<blockquote>''"Later that day it was announced that Sargeant had taken his own life.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-41904161|title=Sacked Labour minister dies|date=7 November 2017|publisher=|via=www.bbc.co.uk}}"''</ref></blockquote>

But I never added the text in question ("which does not use the word "suicide", in any event) and saw no reason to remove it as it factually reports the nature of the announcement and is reliably sourced. I did remove other text which was unsourced. Anyway, I doubt coroners' inquests are going to be influenced by Wikipedia, anyway. If you want to remove the offending text, go ahead ... I won't make a fuss. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that as part of an edit on the page of the above mentioned school, you removed a reference to Mick McManus. I was wondering if you were a former pupil of the school (as I am) as he still teaches at the school, albeit in a much more specialised role.

Sorry for bothering you by the way, Dialectical Drivers (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dialectical Drivers -- it's fine. You are not bothering me and editors have the right to question other editors (maintaining civility, of course) regarding their edits. In this instance, while I am sure the reference to McManus is accurate, it does require requires reliable sourcing. Yours, Quis separabit? 00:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

With this edit in the article Nonie Lynch you were implying that the first year that the The Clare Festival of Traditional Singing was held, was in 2003 instead of in 1990. This created confusion, at least by me, because 1990 was correct, according to the article "The Clare Festival of Traditional Singing". I have now corrected this in the article Nonie Lynch. Bob.v.R (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bob.v.R -- OK. Thanks. Quis separabit? 01:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Rms125a@hotmail.com|<span style="color:orange">'''''Quis separabit?'''''</span>]] → Quis separabit?

to

[[User:Rms125a@hotmail.com|<span style="color: orange;">'''''Quis separabit?'''''</span>]] → Quis separabit?

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

To accomplish this, click on preferences, which brings up a tabbed page, and the first tab, "User profile", is selected by default. On this tab, the third box is "Signature". Enter your signature there. The box next to "Treat the above as wiki markup" should already be checked. Leave it checked.

If you reply, please do so here. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, @Anomalocaris, I did it. Hope it's OK, now. Quis separabit? 06:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Rms125a@hotmail.com. You moved Potonggang Station to Pot'onggang Station per the official name. Could you share the information about the official name? Sawol (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC) :: @Sawol -- I did so because the diacritically enhanced name appears to be the one most used (see ). If you have a strong objection, I would not oppose a switch back. Quis separabit? 17:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sawol -- Upon comparison with other North Korea-related pages, I decided to restore to original spelling. Thanks. Quis separabit? 17:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I was just about to comment on this too - the general consensus on Korean page names written in MR transcription is to omit the diacritics entirely. I don't personally agree with this, but it is what's been decided on... 2Q (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@2Q @Sawol -- OK, done. I undid my errors. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@FWiW Bzuk : Thanks. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, to you and yours, as well. Quis separabit? 15:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a friendly heads up on Andrew Anthony. I declined your speedy deletion request, because the current article is not about the same person as the one deleted at AfD. If you take a look at the AfD, you'll see that was about a local politician, not a writer.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 05:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fabrictramp: OK. Thanks. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Yours, Quis separabit? 15:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Thank you for your edits and your attention, all the best! (KIENGIR (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Thanks so much. Merry Christmas to you and yours, and a very Happy New Year. Quis separabit? 15:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Days of the year#Births and deaths sections being too-Anglophone and/or Euro-centric?. As you were previously involved in trimming our articles on dates, your input in this discussion is welcomed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. I have to leave a notice to you. When I construct a sentence starting with "allegedly" - as it is the case here Allegedly, his colleagues said that: "This outer tranquility hides the volcano inside" with reference afterwards - I want to express (with allegedly) that in given article there is no specification in terms of who are his former colleagues that claim such thing and there is no date and reference to such claim.

On the other hand, we MUST use such term when: "This term is used in the media to avoid litigation when the facts are not 100% certain, or when referring to evidence in an ongoing trial." - as it is the case here.--AirWolf ^talk 21:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent improvements to the article. It needs a lot more work! Marquardtika (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Spotted this. Where's the promotional tone and which editor do you suspect of COI? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: "Where's the promotional tone and which editor do you suspect of COI?"

Hi, the tone is extremely pedantic and pedagogical, especially the "Commentator, controversy and personal life" section (particularly as this is a BLP), but not promotional in nature. Apologies for the misimpression. I am not going to speculate regarding other editors. I may have added one too many tags but it was not a drive-by tagging as I edited the article. Yours, Quis separabit? 15:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. No accusations from me, just wanted clarity, thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I said in my edit summary that the source provided had the date of death included. I am subscribed to a basic account with the Telegraph and used my one article per week to unlock this article. Here is an album proving it should you not be able to access it. Rusted AutoParts 03:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK every edit by this IP is sneaky vandalism inserting plausible looking material that is unsourced and nonsense on inspection. Most of it has been reverted by two cases no on did (I just did). Do you know where or how to report a case like this? -- GreenC 12:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@GreenC: Yes. Go to WP:ANI and make a report where it says "Vandalism". It's straightforward and pretty easy but if you have any problems let me know. Yours. Quis separabit? 12:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ada Ciganlija#Ada Safari - "Fish are mostly released back into the lake. ^[why?]" The facility is privately owned. I've read 5-6 articles on the lake, which included interviews with the owner and he never named a clear reason for returning the fish into the lake. But, given the rules by which the fishermen can keep the fish and owner's pointing to how large his fish are in the interviews, conclusion is that he wishes to spawn bigger and bigger specimen. Additionally, on the large lake, operated by the city, the recreational fishing is also allowed but: with special permits, outside of the tourist season, and "all" fish have to be returned into the lake. PajaBG (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not sure if you're interested in non-English versions of articles, but if you like you can take a look at the Spanish version of University High School (Los Angeles), es:Escuela Preparatoria University (Los Ángeles) (admittedly this article is much smaller than the English one)

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rms125a@hotmail.com. I've been watching you take a lot of articles and split them up into single-sentence paragraphs, which disrupts the narrative flow and, more importantly, is a violation of WP:PARAGRAPHS, which states that "One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs." Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Narrative flow, and note that MOS:BODY includes the idea that "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose".

More importantly, however, in the case of Thomas Patrick Murray, in the course of splitting up the paragraphs, you also tagged the new sentences with "citation needed" tags, which I found to be disingenuous, as that information was clearly cited before the paragraphs were split up. As for the tag in the lead, WP:LEAD does not require citations in the lead if the material is broad and is already be cited in the body of the article, as was the case here. Please do not do that again, as such editing could be construed as disruptive. Canadian Paul 15:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

How do you do one of those content boxes when drafting an article please? Thanks Hellinadustcart (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hellinadustcart -- Hi. I am not sure what you are referring to. Which content box? Try to copy and paste it so I can get an idea. Thanks. Quis separabit? 21:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Think I sorted it but thanks for coming back so quickly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellinadustcart (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not only a smiley for resolving a {{dn}} on Maria Crescentia Höss from an editor who may not have known the religious meaning of enclosure, but on the same day your smiley for my adding that link to Enclosure (disambiguation) as a MOS:SEEALSO. :-D Narky Blert (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee 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/Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you slipped a "reportedly" in about his ethnicity - is Britannica not considered a reliable source? Samsara 22:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Criteria for inclusion in Births and Deaths sections on Wikipedia date articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Albin Schmitt. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Milo Yiannopoulos seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. APS^talk 19:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Albin Schmitt. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. APS^talk 19:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Albin Schmitt -- I apologize for any immoderate language I may have used. Perhaps, now that that issue has been resolved, you could directly address the comments I left, at your invitation, on your talk page. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day Rms, I have seen that you have placed a number of {{cn}} tags on World War II in Yugoslavia and others. The former article already has a {{refimprove}} tag at the top. In case you didn't know, it is completely unnecessary to tag every uncited paragraph with a {{cn}} when the whole article has been tagged for reference improvement. We all know it needs some work. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. I didn't feel the need to add a ref to every single sentence in the Magazine Fort article. I expected >20 inline references to be appropriate for the length of the article. Normally it is OK for a sentence or fragment to be covered by a cite at the end of the paragraph (or slightly before or afterwards if it is clear how it is covered). This is in line with WP:CITEFOOT guidelines. In general as well, perhaps we might avoid placing too many tags on an article. I might in fact consolidate some of the 12 clean-up tags that are now for example on the Fianna Éireann article. Certainly the article has some issues, but large clean-up tags every few lines do not in themselves correct those issues or necessarily improve the article. Guliolopez (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, could you please delay on editing Carnew executions and Dunlavin Green executions until my student finishes editing. This is part of an educational assignment. Thanks. auntieruth (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes you have a point. Ouch! Coretheapple (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw you reverted my edit adding mention of Ophiuchus. May I ask why? Dkendr (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you sent me 4 Thank You messages for my recent edits on Hansjörg Wyss. However, after a while another user reverted all of my edits stating that I misrepresented the sources (I don't think I did). I started a discussion on the talk page of Hansjörg Wyss as well as on that user's talk page and I wanted to ask you for your support given you thanked me for my edits. Best,BankerStar (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks that you restored my edits. I didn't want to restore my edits myself. I thought it would be better to notify you and to have a more experienced editor like you restore my edits. Thanks for your support. Best,BankerStar (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! On a lark I decided to look at the "Recent changes" list, and I noticed at least two curious reductions on the same IP talk page, each tagged with "cleaning up ...". The user page I'm talking about is User talk:71.202.1.48. Sensing something unusual, I decided to look at its history. Sure enough, there were many "cleaning up". I did observe something similar once in the past, I looked at the last *addition* edit, which turned out to be made by you, and it was a second warning. It is all too reminiscent of a certain user talk page I mentioned where he/she "hid" the warnings by "deleting" the text, and after I reported it, it soon resulted in him/her account being blocked indefinitely. I will let you make the call on that IP user though. Thanks! --TheBlueWizard (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @TheBlueWizard -- thanks for the kind words. I checked the IP 71.202.1.48 and there is no current block, much less indefinite. Also, I am not clear what you mean by "I will let you make the call on that IP user though." Thanks, Quis separabit? 03:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, since you apparently know the editing history of User:71.202.1.48 ("second warning" stuff), I thought you would make a better judgment call...like reporting, or just wait until he/she makes a third no-no. I was saying this because in my investigation on another user, I noticed in the history there were repeated "final warnings" which the user conveniently "deleted". You can see this in the history info on User talk:Yo8088. I simply don't have a lot of experience with deciding whether this or that warrants further actions. Hope this helps. --TheBlueWizard (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@TheBlueWizard -- Ah, I see. Well the last substantive vandalism edit he made was when I warned him. Everything since then is him/her (pbly him) playing and deleting stuff from his talk page which he/she (pbly he) is entitled to do. So there's nothing to do for now. Thanks for your updates. Yours, Quis separabit? 04:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I just realized I should have mentioned that User:Yo8088 continued to vandalize Wikipedia pages even after he was given "final warning", at least twice! Upon cursory viewing of that user talk page, I wouldn't see that warning at all...but I did notice how he/she said the message will be deleted after read, which raised my internal something-is-fishy alarms. So I dug into that history, plus contributions...and you can see how that user got blocked indefinitely. So, my point was to direct the attention to unusual deletions...is he/she "hiding" the warnings? Oh well...anyway, happy editing! --TheBlueWizard (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@TheBlueWizard: I get it. But it is fairly established, as far as I know, that editors can blank or delete anything from their talk page(s). That alone won't cut it at WP:ANI to seek a block against the individual. Unfortunately, we have to do it the hard way, monitoring and warning. Those who continue to commit vandalism after being properly warned then should and usually will be blocked, for varying degrees of time depending on the degree and nature of the infraction(s). Yours. Quis separabit? 04:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dorothy Geeben page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rms125a: The Happy New Year template you've been sending (example diff) is missing closing </div> markup, which is centering subsequent headers and comments on people's user pages. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Rms125a@hotmail.com: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. North America1000 21:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Hello, Rms125a@hotmail.com. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 21:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Rms125a@hotmail.com,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Happy New Year!

Rms125a@hotmail.com,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year!

Rms125a@hotmail.com,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Dear RMS, It is not clear to me why a comment by an modest German parlementarian, mentioning dead popes, is so particularly important. Many people no doubt commented on Tudjman, viewing him as a hero, a criminal, or something in between. Do we quote them all? I can see that a quote by Kissinger is important, but not some German parlementarian. Anyhow, the section is about the deaolings with the international court, and it really does not contribute that. I move to remove the IMHO ridiculous comment.Ludwig Boltzmann (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ludwig Boltzmann -- you may be right. Why not seek consensus on the article talk page? My talk page is not the site to open or extend the discussion. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This makes sense. I will do this. Ludwig Boltzmann (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi - besides the fact that you responded to a year old comment which shouldn't have been made, you should know talk pages aren't forums. And they especially should not be used to discuss BLPs of people not connected to the article. I've redacted that. Please don't replace it. If you want to delete the whole section, feel free. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I see that you are not familiar with IBDB (a Broadway database). It is totally different from IMDB (a user-created Movie site). IBDb is a WP:reliable source with an editorial board that compiles the information using high-quality sources, such as Playbill programs. See http://www.ibdb.com/About. It is cited in more than 6,000 Wikipedia articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't really understand this edit. There's no vandalism and the person elected was not Will Glendinning, but his wife, Pip. Will was elected for Lower Falls and Pip for Upper Falls. Valenciano (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Valenciano: who said anything about vandalism but it was Pip Glendinning, not her husband Will, who defeated Máirtín Ó Muilleoir but gave up her seat when her baby was born. Quis separabit? 21:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The speculation of experts as expressed in reliable sources has always been allowed, as long as it's clearly labelled as speculation and not fact. That's why you were wrong to remove the speculation (assuming the book it came from is an RS), but right to remove the category, because it's based not on facts but on speculation. BMK (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For encouraging a new user. :) ZacBro7682 (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, How Are You, Regarding Article Frances Bay, Most Be Of Note , That Under Reference 10 , The Seinfeld And Happy Gilmore were Prominent Roles, And Started In Radio ,Do Not Know How To Do Inline Citations, Could You Do It For Me, Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.213.114 (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are tagging the description "Collaborators and quislings" used by Zerjavic. The source is on line . Please verify.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Zerjavic did not elaborate on the the description "Collaborators and quislings". On Wikipedia we must post what our sources are saying. Our opinions do not belong here.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Woogie10w: Therefore and thus, {{Clarify}} is, in fact, appropriate. Quis separabit? 02:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I need to review the calculations of Zerjavic and his critics. Your tag has prompted me to research this topic. We need to present the varios sources from a NPOV. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Give me two days or so and I shall complete the article and have it peer-reviewed for accuracy, grammar and composition. AustinHammond (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@AustinHammond -- OK. Quis separabit? 18:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide me with the supposed unsourced claims I have made on the Copper Country Strike of 1913-1914 page? I have a plethora of sources for this topic available that I might use. AustinHammond (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I have no issues with your edits on the Copper Country Strike of 1913-1914 page. AustinHammond (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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