User:Davidgoodheart/sandbox wikipedia old comments

Dmol's comments on Tiffany Sessions (Person without notability. Listing for deletion.)  (Delete, just another of hundreds of thousands of missing persons cases.)

Please check out my article
Hi Dane, the article that I made is in your user page. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi David. I see why the article was deleted, it didn't make a credible claim of significance. It needs some expansion with the details surrounding the disappearance and some additional sourcing if possible. --  Dane talk  05:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Maybe I can get this info by searching through newspaper archives, or TV shows about missing people, or books on missing people, I will do my best to find some info, thanks for your input. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! No problem, i'll be happy to look again when it's ready. --  Dane talk  05:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The deletion of the Disappearance of Gary Hayward
Hi, you deleted the page that I recently created, and I'm not exactly sure why. What would it take for the page to be accepted and not deleted? Does it need more sources? I have seen wiki pages that have no sources at all and they continue to exist. I also feel that the disappearance of this person is just as notable as other people of the List of people who disappeared mysteriously, who are under the title of "Disappearance of", so why was this one deleted since it was about the event that happened and not the person? Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ack. My abject apologies for not getting back to you sooner on this - my life got abruptly turned upside-down around the time you asked this, and Wikipedia's been the furthest thing from my mind for the past couple weeks.The issue isn't precisely a matter of sourcing or notability, the lack of which aren't reasons for speedy deletion; it's that the article text provided no indication of important or significance. While it's true that even a middling source is enough to stave off speedy deletion, those you cited were unambiguous directory entries. Prepending the title with a "Disappearance of" fig-leaf doesn't magically make an article not be about a person, and see WP:Other stuff exists for why pointing to other similar articles is unconvincing.I'd be happy to restore to draftspace if you can show a prima facie case that the article might pass the WP:General notability guideline, and thus survive an eventual listing at WP:Articles for deletion; I haven't been able to find anything more substantial than variants of the dozen-odd words you already linked to. Failing that, your route of appeal is WP:Deletion review. —Cryptic 00:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Paige Renkoski
Many thanks for your work on the article Disappearance of Paige Renkoski.

I didn't have time to do much more than start it. I'm really happy to see the expansion. Kestenbaum (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Dane's comments about transformers merged pages

 * Based on the history and what I can see, the one page seems to be a better set up for the topic vs. several small, separate pages. If there is content missing from the merged page that was on the original, we can look at an undeletion so you can update the new page.  Is that the case? --  Dane  talk  01:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Dane's comments about formatting picture
Hi Dane, could so please format the picture on this article Bambi Hall so it the same as Brock Lesner, with the name above the picture, but still in the infobox? I tried to do it, but I couldn't. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - the trick is this is an infobox inside of an infobox! But it's all done :). --  Dane  talk  23:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A hishap of words in old post of mine
Hi, months ago I sent you a post saying that you sent me and email, and what I really meant was a post, so sorry for the mishap of words. Also Wikipedia has just thanked me for my ten thousandth edit and have spent countless hours writing for Wikipedia as I am valuable to your cause so I hope that you can understand that I take being an editor very seriously. Also I have a question about a disambiguation page that I created about a month ago about need to ask you something about it and it's content. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming you mean Sloppy (disambiguation), all I'd say is 'lose the "all articles whose titles include the word sloppy " link, which is about as useful as feet on a fish—dab pages are meant to disambiguate multiple items with the same name, not to be directories of everything no matter how tangentially related, and nobody searching for Lonely Christmas (Sloppy Seconds EP) or Sloppy Meateaters is just going to enter "Sloppy" as their search term. &#8209; Iridescent 19:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "feet on a fish" - must remember this formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "feet on a fish" - must remember this formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

List of people who disappeared mysteriously
Hi, have you written any articles about any of the people from the List of people who disappeared mysteriously? Some of the years only have one entry and could use more. I am going to write one soon, do you plan on writing any?

Akld guy (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. No I haven't written any of them but have heavily edited some of the New Zealand articles. I don't plan to write any new ones, but here are some disappearances in New Zealand that don't have articles:
 * Jim Donnelly - 2004. Never found
 * Cissy Chen - 2012. Body found a long time later and her partner charged with murder
 * Amber-Lee Cruickshank - 1992. Two-year-old toddler
 * Leo Lipp-Neighbours - 2010. In April 2017, his car with his remains inside was found in the water at Nelson wharf
 * For all the above, see here
 * Wendy Mayes - 1961. Disappeared after meeting a man for an interview to work as a photographer's model. See here
 * Peter Boland – a 9-year-old New Zealand boy who disappeared in 1957.

List of people who disappeared mysteriously
Hi Jack, the link I just added was to an edit I did not add, someone else did and if that person mysteriously disappeared then I believe it should be added to the list. Since I did not add the persons name, and just the link, please discuss that with them. As you stated your are polite, well so am I, and I am not mean to people or give them a hard time, unless they give me a reason to do so. I have been working hard to find citations then add to names. So thank you for not removing the names that are properly referenced and especially the Tiffany Sessions article since I was the one who created it. - : 23:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem . The Sessions article is definitely worth including. In a way, its really creepy when you realize that each entry is a person who was interrupted while just doing their life, with a family that holds out hope that their missing child/spouse/parent will reappear someday, with an old bump on their head that made them forget everything. In all likelihood, all of them are dead, the victims of sinister deeds, and that's depressing. That's why I specifically nail the article down in accordance to its title, so it doesn't become a massive catch-all list. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Name of five year old
Hi, I was referring to Melissa Brannen, and I think she belongs on the list because Michael Dunahee is as well, and there is not mystery (Mostly likely, as there likely is no other explanation) that he was kidnapped, and it still is a mystery as it not "for sure" what happened. Can we re-add it? : (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd argue against it, as there is a confession of murder. Just because we don't know what the confessed killer did to her remains doesn't constitute a mystery. You seem to be missing the primary working part of the qualification. Normally, people don't disappear. The fact that they went missing is the mystery. If someone is caught or confesses to having made them disappear, then the mystery is gone. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Just curious
I don't want to jump into the Lord Lucan issue, but I'm interested in your thoughts that might help me understand the rationale for excluding him. How is Lucan different from D. B. Cooper who is in the list? For both we have a good idea of why they disappeared (to escape justice). For both their eventual fates are a mystery. Do you think Cooper should remain on the list? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Okay, good question, bc I had to ask around about he differences bwtween Lucan and Cooper's disappearance (I was of the opinion that Cooper should be removed as well). Both are fugitives from justice and both disappeared after committing their crime. I don't think there is a difference between the two. Both disappeared after committing a crime, and both had no desire to be found. They don't belong on the list because the operative litmus for inclusion is that they disappeared 'mysteriously' - ie. there was no reason for the vanished person to have done so. It was unexpected. Does that help? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Yes, that's my thinking. I searched the archives for Cooper and only found a question about whether he should be included because that's not his real name. Cooper's story is more interesting in my opinion, so you may get even more resistance if you suggest removing him. Sundayclose (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Don't i know it! I came across this really interesting article that suggests that Cooper might have been a man named Richard Lepsy (as per this). There isn't an article for the guy, and I think it would be presumptive to add Lepsey to the article, as he is probably just a deadbeat dad or something. Thousands of people go missing all the time; this article seems to be cataloguing only the ones that develop sources. Lepsey has none. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Your edits and Christian Wikipedians
Hi Fishhead2100, thanks for your edits to my Bambi Hall Wikpedia page, I call it that because I created it. I see on user page the word Christian Wikipedians, are you a Christian? I am somewhat religious myself (I need more bible study thought) and I am very interested in the study of the bible. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not your article. You merely created it.  I am a Christian.  I have been my whole life.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Your right
Hi Fishhead2100, I have moved The Twin Towers to other part of list since I only revived it, I won't argue with you on that one. I believe that Christians should follow the bible rules, some Christians at my church live common law and have had children out of wedlock, which are both sins as they should not be doing this. Do you agree? Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for religious disucssion. But I'll say this and it's done that you are looking down on people for their choices. Common is by legal definition marriage. Don't cast the first stone unless you are perfect.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Bkonrad

 * . Please don't start a new section when you are continuing discussion from previous section(s). Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Sometimes crap is "allowed" for so long as no one notices. But if edits are not aligned with current guidelines, there is good likelihood that the edits will be removed or corrected at some point (whether by me or other editors is irrelevant). I am not particularly interested in following you around with a pooper scooper to clean up after your edits. If I happen to notice them and I have the time and inclination to fix them, then I might do so. Or they might be "allowed" to be kept until some other editor notices and cleans them up. But it would be better for all concerned if you didn't make such edits to begin with. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Super Mario
Hi, I have re-added Super Mario the wrestler to list, why did you remove it? Only one blue link is needed, wrestler does exist and wrestled in the USWA which at one time was the third biggest wrestling organization in the u.s., so that is what I have changed the blue link to. Though I think independent wrestling was fine though, shouldn't it be? You can check Wikia to find information on Super Mario.

Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The wrestler is not mentioned in the linked article. Mere existence is not sufficient for inclusion on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 10:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What linked article do you mean? Look up super mario in the link provided below. What kind of info is needed in order for it to be added to list? Is This link here is good enough to show that it should be added to list? http://www.cagematch.net/?id=2&nr=10915&page=4

Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The only linked article that matters is the Wikipedia article that is linked to on the disambiguation page. Whether the wrestler is mentioned elsewhere on the internet is irrelevant. older ≠ wiser 16:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Trekker's comments on fury page: Still absolutely not notable. Stop this childishness

Current problems that I am having
Hi, I am currently having a lot of difficulties with Wikipedia, Can you please help me out with some problems that I am having? Some of the other administrators that I have contacted only sometimes get back to me, which doesn't allow me to solve my problems. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If an issue relates to a matter that I have dealt with, or is a straightforward admin action, then I should be happy to help. However, if it is a more complicated issue then it is better taken to WP:AN where it is likely to catch the eye of an interested admin. It needs to be borne in mind that admins, as with all editors, are volunteers and they have to prioritize demands on their time. Just Chilling (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for responding so quickly, I will stick to two current issues at a time. The first being is about sources that I was using. For some reason ycdtotv.com was put on the spam list and I don't know why. I don't think it shouldn't have been and would like to see it removed from there. I need to use sources from that website for some Wikipedia articles that exist as well as one that I am currently making. If I can't be removed for some reason can I ever use it a sources for Wiki pages? The second is other sources that I have used and am currently using. On the Disappearance of Dorothy Forstein page that I created I was using websites that people though were not creditable but I think they are, so could you please check out the pages history and old sources and tell me if you think they are suitable to use. And some editor asked me not to use a YouTube video for an article (the page is wrestler Bambi Hall which I also created) and said is wasn't creditable, yet the video was an add from the wrestling company itself so it was creditable, as YouTube videos sometimes are reliable sources. Please let me know what you think. I will address my next issues in my next message to you. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * URLs that have been blacklisted cannot be used either as sources or external links. If you want to have a source removed from the blacklist then you should follow the procedure at WP:BLACKLIST. Your editorial dispute should, first of all, go to the article talk page and then, if necessary, you should use one of the procedures at WP:DISPUTE. Just Chilling (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, I will get back to you in a few days. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the right format, didn't I have it right before?
Hi, I am currently experiencing a lot of frustration with my editing as my edits to the Sloppy (disambiguation) page were removed by and editor who claim they weren't right. But if you look at these disambiguation pages Spider (disambiguation), Wonder (disambiguation), Beast (disambiguation), Dirty (disambiguation) and Boston (disambiguation) you will see that under wonder is the wonder years, small wonder, and wonder woman, under spider is spiderman and spider woman, and under Beast is Beast Man (I had put Beast Man on "The Beast" disambiguation page, but it was moved to Beast page by an administrator) and under Boston is the title Boston pizza which is the same format that I was using, and under Dirty (disambiguation) there is Dirty Mountains, so why then is my formatting wrong? If the Wonder Years and Small Wonder can be included on the wonder page, than why can't the Sloppy Sobs or Super Sloppy Double Dare be included on the Sloppy page, and if title Boston Pizza or Boston cream pie is on the Boston Page why can't Sloppy Joe or Sloppy seconds (disambiguation) or Sloppy Meateaters go on the Sloppy page. They could go in other uses or a see also section on the sloppy page. Also another editor removed my edits to a disambiguation page because just because they didn't find them notable (that was just there opinion, which shouldn't count and many people would disagree with them, and that they are notable!), which I will address in my next message to you. So how should the page really be set up, and can I restore my edits to the page? I will really need your help to solve this one, and thank you. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I regret that I don't have the time to work through all this. If you have questions on the principles or structure of disambiguation pages then these can be put at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Issues on the specific page should be taken to the Talk:Sloppy (disambiguation) page. Just Chilling (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, you said you don't have time to help me, so I guess your really busy. Do know any administrator that could help me with this issue and some other issues I am having right now? Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that admin attention is needed. My suggestion remains to take the issues to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation where editors with the necessary interest/expertise hang out. Just Chilling (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thats what I will do, as I also need help with category pages is there a site for that one as well? Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Just Chilling (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

List of people who disappeared mysteriously - name change
Hi, recently this page's name got changed to the list of missing people and then back. I read that you wanted to call it List of who disappeared, which I think would also be a good name. Do you think we should change it's name? Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I felt, and still feel, that List of people who disappeared is more appropriate. But the recent name changes have been contentious, so we cannot just change it without going through a consensus process. The proper place for that is on the article's Talk page. Don't be surprised if you ask there and get no support. I already tried and there was no support. The consensus was to change it back to List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Akld guy (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

List of missing people
Hi. Sorry to contact you out of the blue,. This is a missing persons case in Britain which still is revived in the news occasionally, and which you may wish to add to the above article. Regards. Kieronoldham (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Page move with no discussion
This article was moved from "List of people who disappeared mysteriously" to "List of missing people". To my knowledge there was no discussion of the move. Subsequently the lead sentence describing the contents was changed. Does this significantly change the criteria for inclusion in the article? There has been quite a bit of discussion on this talk page about not every missing person qualifies as having "disappeared mysteriously". Should this move have been discussed? Sundayclose (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. there was no discussion and the new title does not agree with the content of the article, which is people who have disappeared mysteriously. Suggest this move is discussed, once again, and original title, possibly re-instated. David J Johnson (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The page was moved requested by User:Yintan at WP:RM/TR for: 1) Current title is an unlikely search term, 2) disappearances are mysterious by definition, 3) new title is in line with List of missing ships, List of missing aircraft, and other "missing" lists. I'm in agreement with this move. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we need some opinions here. Pinging some people who have been active editing the article, as well as the editor who made the move. Feel free to ping others; I'm not trying to canvass one point of view:, , , , . Sundayclose (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there has been some dispute about whether all cases of missing people are "mysterious". For example, the remains of some 9/11 victims have never been found, but they have been declared legally dead and there is no real mystery about what happened to them. But I would appreciate other opinions on this matter. Sundayclose (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But not all 9/11 missing cases are notable. If they are notable enough to have a wiki article, and are missing, they should be included. It's like having a "List of people from X city", you're obviously not going to include everyone in the city, just the notable ones. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Some are notable and have Wikipedia articles. I think those are cases that have been disputed for inclusion on this page. If there is a consensus to include such people in the article, that may resolve that issue. Sundayclose (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said at the move request, "1) Current title is an unlikely search term, 2) disappearances are mysterious by definition, 3) new title is in line with List of missing ships, List of missing aircraft, and other "missing" lists." Especially points 1 and 3 carry a lot of weight, in my opinion. I didn't expect this move would need a discussion, I thought it was obvious. We don't have a List of ships that disappeared mysteriously, it's a List of missing ships. Also, virtually all people on the list haven't "disappeared mysteriously". They were lost on battlefields, kidnapped or abducted, drowned at sea, did a runner, etcetera. There's nothing "mysterious" about that. And in any case, the original title is now a redirect so there are no broken links or problems like that. Kind regards,  Y intan  18:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At this early stage I have no preference until I see some convincing arguments and ponder a bit. But the move should not have taken place without notification and discussion here first. We don't all monitor the move request page, so it was discourteous to move without seeking support here first. I'm highly tempted to move it back. Akld guy (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was taken in a discourteous manner; I can see how the move may have been considered uncontroversial to some. Unless you have the page mover right you wouldn't be able to move it back because of the redirect anyway...but you would have to go here to contest an undiscussed move...however, talking it out here is a much better plan. Besides, Yintan has brought forward great points in my view to keep the current title, but none to change the title back. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I only moved it after it was listed at Requested moves/Technical requests under "Uncontroversial technical requests"; I'm effectively just the messenger. I have no opinion on it either way. --  Alex TW 23:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This was not a trivial move. It should have at least been notified here. Akld guy (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely opposed to a change of name, but perhaps the new name is inappropriate. "List of missing people" conveys the sense that these are people who could yet be found alive. It seems an inappropriate name for people who died hundreds of years ago, or for those who would likewise certainly be dead by now. These people make up a large section of the list. Is it appropriate to list as missing Ambrose Bierce who died disappeared in 1914 aged 71? To complicate matters, we have a section devoted to those who disappeared and they or their bodies were later found, or the circumstances became known. Is it appropriate to list those under a title that calls them "missing"? I suggest that a more appropriate name is "List of people who disappeared", thus dropping "mysteriously" from the original name. It has correctly been pointed out that "mysteriously" is redundant. Akld guy (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think people who returned or were later found shouldn't be listed anyway, whatever the name of the list. They are no longer missing nor have they disappeared. The other 'missing' lists don't mention found subjects either. Also, the current list is an almost random collection of people whose whereabouts, at some time or another, are/were unknown. Amelia Earhart should be on it, yes, but Sidney Reilly (shot as a spy in Russia) shouldn't because we know what happened there. The same goes for, for example, Agatha Christie. Trying to find a title that will adequately cover the current collection is virtually impossible, it's just too unfocused. In short, the title isn't the problem. The contents of the list are.  Y intan  07:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving me a ping on the topic. I think the move wasn't the best one to make. True, Tintan - other Stuff does indeed Exist, but that's not a compelling argument to advocate a change. And, as people are not ships or whatever, sometimes their disappearances are in fact out of character and mysterious. Your assertion:
 * "They were lost on battlefields, kidnapped or abducted, drowned at sea, did a runner, etcetera. There's nothing "mysterious" about that"
 * is one borne solely out of you Sherlocking the entirety of the article to an incorrect least common denominator. Why not just create a redirect called "missing people"? Sorry, I think your assumption that no one would care wasn't really thought out. It was a bold move, but I advocate returning the article back to its previous title, and creating a redirect or two in the off-chance that somepne doesn't know how to type in strange, mysterious, missing, people or some combination thereof. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It would have been very helpful to peruse the archives of this page and refer back to this discussion before any such move away from "disappeared mysteriously". Certainly the current title makes sense as a redirect, but as I concluded the logic behind that title was sufficiently convincing to retain it going forward. Given the prior history of discussions of the title, to move the page just like that is an ill-considered move at best. And regarding Agatha Christie, I think, we should create a subsection for people who did return after a disappearance but declined to explain their whereabouts (like that French lawyer in the 1970s whose name escapes me right now), or did not account for their absence convincingly (which would allow us to include Aimee Semple McPherson). Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * One of the following options might be appropriate:
 * 1. Retain the current name - List of missing people


 * 2. Move back - to List of people who disappeared mysteriously


 * 3. Move to - List of people who disappeared
 * Support. This simply drops the redundant 'mysteriously' from the original name. We are not obliged to conform with other articles on missing ships or planes, which may even be inappropriately named themselves. A redirect from "List of missing people" would easily solve the search problem that was of concern to the recent mover. The problem with the current title is that it implies that the people are missing and can be expected to be found, whereas many are long dead. Akld guy (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 4. Another name? Your suggestion
 * Maybe List of people who have gone been missing or List of people who have disappeared to better include those entries which are eventually found, as to say they have been missing at some point. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether you're a native speaker of English but I am. Both of those options carry the sense of an ongoing situation. Sorry, but they don't apply in the case of those who disappeared so long ago that they are now dead. Akld guy (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ahahaah If you looked at my user page you'd see clear as day it states I'm a native speaker of English...but anyway...this whole page is about ongoing situations. They've gone missing and it is an ongoing situation of where they may be. The title you've suggested does not take into consideration those who have been found, as you've stated, so we're going to need to come up with something else. These are my suggestions to compensate for that. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 01:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Some editors lie on their user pages. Those pages can't be trusted. The title I suggested does not rule out those who have been found. Akld guy (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why we have a pretty clear policy on Assuming Good Faith. Be nice, or get slapped with a trout. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Recording the fact that at this point Vaseline struck out "gone" from his/her earlier post. Comments before this point refer to the unstruck version, "gone missing". Akld guy (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just letting you know, you can use male pronouns if you need to mention me.
 * To me, "List of people who disappeared" implies they just disappeared and that was that; never to be found. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 01:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with Vas here. With respect to Daniel Case' opinion, I think it should change back. Changing the title changes the point of the article. List of missing people could include unrecoverable 9/11 victims or people who are just missing. The emphasis is - and should be - on folk who disappeared mysteriously. The guy who makes my Subway sandwich is missing today, because he's not in. Compare that to 'the guy who makes my Subway sandwich vanished mysteriously after walking into the office in the back. Big difference. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Restoration to the original title would be my second choice, but it's a lot more appropriate than the current title. Akld guy (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

My opinion (in case I haven't made it clear): Restore to "List of people who disappeared mysteriously". That's the only option that fits the content of the article. Sundayclose (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Since there was no consensus to move the article, and there appears to be a clear consensus against doing so, let's move it back. I nominate the person who moved it in the first place. I'd do it myself, but I'd likely fuck it up royally, not having done that before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging to see if s/he is willing to move it back. According to a comment above, moving it requires page mover rights. If no one is willing to move it, it may need to be addressed at WP:Requested moves. Sundayclose (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * He. And ✅. --  Alex TW 04:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Case on Carlease Elizabeth Simms 1981 missing person
sources are all missing-persons databases, with no media coverage in reliable sources

Deletion of image
Hi Jim, why did you delete the image on the Luis Macedo page? And what would it take to have it restored, or a different picture of the same person put up? Davidgoodheart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:23, 2 September 2017‎ (talk • contribs) Davidgoodheart (UTC)


 * Sorry, but there has never been a page called Luis Macedo and the three of your images which have been deleted were not my deletions, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.


 * Aha, I did find File:LUIS MACEDO wanted.jpeg which was deleted, as it says at Commons:Deletion requests/File:LUIS MACEDO wanted.jpeg because it is probably not PD as claimed. Since the FBI does not have custody of the people on its most wanted list, it is unlikely that photographs of them were actually taken by the FBI. In order for the image to be restored, someone must prove that the image is actually PD or provide another image that is. .     Jim  . . .   (Jameslwoodward)   (talk to me) 12:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

My comment
(I have decided to remove this one, it just can't be used, does anyone disagree?)

Changing word
Hi, I changed the word on List of people who disappeared mysteriously solved cases from "of" to "after" and you changed it back. I think after is a better word to use because we may know why they disappeared, but not might not find out after until later, since they might not have been found. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is the sentence:


 * This is a list of people who disappeared mysteriously, but were later found dead or alive, and/or the circumstances of their disappearance became known.


 * Your version, "the circumstances after their disappearance became known." is imprecise because it doesn't include the circumstances at the time they went missing, only the time after. Whereas "circumstances of" includes everything from the time they disappeared and afterwards.
 * Also, your version results in a grammatical ambiguity because it could be read as:


 * and/or the circumstances, after their disappearance became known, [missing verb and phrase here] . Akld guy (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Akld guy breaking up case (great idea!)
Akld guy (talk | contribs) (→‎Solved cases: Breaking up solved cases) Next edit →

Explaining why I altered the template
Hi, I'm sorry for changing the template of the Tiffany Sessions page, I just saw that there were some missing words, and that I called a user an administrator which is misleading, so I didn't think that there would be any harm in just making some touch ups to it, so I apologize if I upset you. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (This AFD from three months ago, for the benefit of confused watchers; I have no idea why it's being raised now) I'm not upset—I was just undoing your disruption since you were ignoring the large No further edits should be made to this page notice, and warning you that of all the things to get blocked over this would be a truly stupid cause for which to go over the top. (The Wikipedia community takes a very dim view of people retroactively editing discussions.) &#8209; Iridescent 11:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (This AFD from three months ago, for the benefit of confused watchers; I have no idea why it's being raised now) I'm not upset—I was just undoing your disruption since you were ignoring the large No further edits should be made to this page notice, and warning you that of all the things to get blocked over this would be a truly stupid cause for which to go over the top. (The Wikipedia community takes a very dim view of people retroactively editing discussions.) &#8209; Iridescent 11:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Misha Kokaia
Hi, I have upgrading the Misha Kokaia article, but I can't find any internet info or sources to add to it. Do you know how to use the wayback machine or some other internet archive so that more sources can be added to it? If more sources and info can be added then I can add it to the List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I cannot. Using the wayback machine would require having sources and I have found none. It is possible that offline sources in Georgian exist, but I have no way to access these.-- Auric    talk  14:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

My messages to Iredescent

 * I'm sorry but I think you may have confused me with someone else? This is not a subject in which I have either any interest, or any particular knowledge. My sole involvement with this article was a procedural decline of a speedy deletion request on it (at a time when the article looked like this) on the grounds that I didn't feel the article met the strict criteria under which articles can be deleted from Wikipedia without discussion.
 * I would note in passing that any book claiming "how did the dinosaurs die out?" is an "unsolved mystery" is not going to be worth the paper on which it's printed when it comes to being a reliable source. The K-T event is probably the single most heavily researched incident in the whole of prehistory, and the only disputes are whether there was a single impact event at Chicxulub or whether there were multiple impacts, and whether the plume(s) and flash directly wiped out the tetrapods almost instantly, whether the plume(s) triggered an impact winter that caused mass extinction over the relatively short term, or whether the shock of the impact opened volcanic vents around the world causing a slower extinction as ash clouds and increased SO2 levels caused plant life to die back. Nobody other than a few creationist cranks seriously disputes the Chicxulub impact nowadays (hell, once you know what you're looking for if you get up high enough you can see the Chicxulub crater).
 * If you genuinely feel that the same people are repeatedly tagging material you've written for deletion without good reason, you have a case for a complaint of harassment. The important thing to take into account is whether their taggings are actually inappropriate; if most of the nominations are resulting in deletion, then that's probably a sign that you're creating inappropriate articles and that these people have notice a problem and are (correctly) checking your other contributions to see if they're also problematic.
 * Looking at the notifications on your talkpage, it appears that the two people responsible for the recent deletion discussions regarding you are Sitush and TheGracefulSlick, who are two of Wikipedia's most experienced editors, and I think it's unlikely that they both have nothing better to do than harass you for the sake of it. From Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Eldor Alfred Pearson and Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Carla Losey there seems to be consensus thus far that you're creating inappropriate content. Despite the fact that its size and breadth of topics can make it feel like Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information, we actually have fairly strict rules on what should and shouldn't be included. Missing person cases are much more common than most people realise (about 250,000 missing person reports are made each year in the UK alone). In most cases, unless there was something unusual about them that led to particularly widespread publicity or a change in the law, missing person cases are rarely going to be notable by Wikipedia's particular definition of the term even if they do receive publicity in the local press, any more than we'd host articles on individual road accidents or grocery-store robberies even if they made the news at the time unless there was something particular to separate them from the norm. Creating articles from scratch is probably the single hardest thing to do on Wikipedia and something with which even many professional academics struggle—don't take it personally if people are finding fault with material you've written. &#8209; Iridescent 17:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the notifications on your talkpage, it appears that the two people responsible for the recent deletion discussions regarding you are Sitush and TheGracefulSlick, who are two of Wikipedia's most experienced editors, and I think it's unlikely that they both have nothing better to do than harass you for the sake of it. From Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Eldor Alfred Pearson and Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Carla Losey there seems to be consensus thus far that you're creating inappropriate content. Despite the fact that its size and breadth of topics can make it feel like Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information, we actually have fairly strict rules on what should and shouldn't be included. Missing person cases are much more common than most people realise (about 250,000 missing person reports are made each year in the UK alone). In most cases, unless there was something unusual about them that led to particularly widespread publicity or a change in the law, missing person cases are rarely going to be notable by Wikipedia's particular definition of the term even if they do receive publicity in the local press, any more than we'd host articles on individual road accidents or grocery-store robberies even if they made the news at the time unless there was something particular to separate them from the norm. Creating articles from scratch is probably the single hardest thing to do on Wikipedia and something with which even many professional academics struggle—don't take it personally if people are finding fault with material you've written. &#8209; Iridescent 17:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the notifications on your talkpage, it appears that the two people responsible for the recent deletion discussions regarding you are Sitush and TheGracefulSlick, who are two of Wikipedia's most experienced editors, and I think it's unlikely that they both have nothing better to do than harass you for the sake of it. From Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Eldor Alfred Pearson and Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Carla Losey there seems to be consensus thus far that you're creating inappropriate content. Despite the fact that its size and breadth of topics can make it feel like Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information, we actually have fairly strict rules on what should and shouldn't be included. Missing person cases are much more common than most people realise (about 250,000 missing person reports are made each year in the UK alone). In most cases, unless there was something unusual about them that led to particularly widespread publicity or a change in the law, missing person cases are rarely going to be notable by Wikipedia's particular definition of the term even if they do receive publicity in the local press, any more than we'd host articles on individual road accidents or grocery-store robberies even if they made the news at the time unless there was something particular to separate them from the norm. Creating articles from scratch is probably the single hardest thing to do on Wikipedia and something with which even many professional academics struggle—don't take it personally if people are finding fault with material you've written. &#8209; Iridescent 17:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles are rapidly being deleted, so I must act now before most are gone, so information is needed
Hi, first I would like to say thanks for responding to my message, which is something you always do when other administrators often don't (at least not right away) and that the info that you provided was both funny and helpful, and when I wrote that Sessions' disappearance was mentioned in the same book as the dinosaurs extinction that you drew that picture and added all that extra info, which is something I don't think administrators would do, which I think is very impressive and also humorous. The fact that my articles and others are rapidly being deleted is causing me much grief and frustration and I don't see at all how this could be beneficial to anyone as Wikipedia's purpose is to provide people with information. EVERYONE I have asked who I know personally doesn't think that there was anything wrong with the sources (whether local or not) or articles which I wrote, and that I used and that (with the exception of three articles which I wrote that were terribly sourced, even I can admit that) my articles shouldn't have been deleted. I do know that if my articles keep getting deleted that I may not want to write anymore, which I believe would be a shame as I am a frequent and valuable contributor, and I am sure many editors may feel the same. The information I need from you is under what Wikipedia category do I file a complaint? Davidgoodheart 07:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * From your deleted contribution list (admin only) the only articles you've ever edited in any capacity which have subsequently been deleted were:
 * Death of Aisling Symes (deleted following consensus at a deletion debate)
 * Disappearance of Carla Losey (deleted following consensus at a deletion debate)
 * Disappearance of Carlease Simms (deleted following unanimous consensus at a deletion debate)
 * Disappearance of David Guerrero (deleted following a more borderline deletion debate)
 * Disappearance of Eldor Alfred Pearson (deleted following unanimous consensus at a deletion debate)
 * Disappearance of Linne Dominelli (deleted following unanimous consensus at a deletion debate)
 * These aren't a case of one rogue admin unilaterally deciding they don't like your contributions; they're each the result of multiple people concluding that they don't comply with Wikipedia policies. If you really feel that the deletions were inappropriate, go to Deletion review and follow the instructions there, but in my judgement the only one that would have any chance of being restored is David Guerrero.
 * As I've told you before, although Wikipedia's size can sometimes make it feel that it's a directory of everything, its scope is actually fairly tightly focussed; for something to be included the article needs to demonstrate that the topic in question is considered noteworthy. Missing person cases are very, very common—far more common than most people realise (in the US alone there are 2300 people reported missing each day)—and it's not practical nor desirable for us to list all of them, but only those that were particularly high-profile or had a lasting impact such as a change to the law. To take an analogy, we have articles on individual hurricanes, but we don't have an individual article on every storm or tornado that caused damage, even though such storms would almost always have received significant coverage in the local newspapers.
 * Wikipedia does welcome you, and I hope you do stay, but if there's a consensus that a particular type of article is inappropriate you need to consider that all the people saying it's inappropriate are likely doing so for a reason, and see if there's something else you could be writing about. &#8209; Iridescent 07:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I suspect they may also be worried about the other articles here. As I type this, only one of them is up for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Yes, I see the problem; I'll ask at WT:CRIMEPROJ to see if anyone there has any thoughts, since although these aren't technically crime articles it's probably where people with access to sources can be found. &#8209; Iridescent 19:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I suspect they may also be worried about the other articles here. As I type this, only one of them is up for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Yes, I see the problem; I'll ask at WT:CRIMEPROJ to see if anyone there has any thoughts, since although these aren't technically crime articles it's probably where people with access to sources can be found. &#8209; Iridescent 19:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Getting information about a Wikipedia fork or a private wiki
Hi, I need to get some information about making some Wikipedia forks or private wikis. I have read that they can they look very much like a Wikipedia article and I am considering making some as an alternative to the deletion of my articles. I need to know who can edit them and which one would I use if I wanted to make one like the List of people who disappeared mysteriously and would that be possible to do? Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about a true Wikipedia fork—that is, a snapshot of the entire content of Wikipedia which will then diverge from that point onwards—the instructions are at FAQ/Forking. If you want a full Wikipedia copy (all revisions to all pages) it will take multiple terabytes of data so don't try it unless you have a professional RAID server and an internet connection that can handle it; if you just want the current version of all the articles and don't need any other namespace (talkpages, user pages etc) go to meta:Data dump torrents and select the current <tt>pagesarticlesmultistream.xml.bz2</tt> file (usually the third one down); the compressed file takes up about 14gb and expands to about 60gb. The instructions to install and run MediaWiki (the software on which Wikipedia runs) are at mw:Manual:Installation guide.
 * I strongly advise against setting up a Wikipedia fork; unless you know what you're doing it's a very time consuming process since you'll also have to register your own website and arrange for servers (hosting a site with subpages isn't something you can do with a computer in your basement and a phone line). If you just want to create a set of articles that wouldn't be considered appropriate on Wikipedia and want to retain the "anyone can edit" and wikitext formatting aspects of Wikipedia, there are numerous other non-WMF wiki hosting sites. Fandom (better known by its old name of Wikia) is probably the best known, and your best bet if you're unfamiliar with or unconfident about the technical aspects of wiki design as it's aimed at amateurs—their step-by-step instructions for creating a new wiki are here. If you don't like the look of Fandom/Wikia—or don't like the lack of control ("anyone can edit" applies there as well), there are numerous other wiki hosting services available.
 * If you're intending to do what I think you're planning to do, which is set up a national missing-persons database for the US, then you may want to question whether running it on MediaWiki is actually the best option. There are many advantages to the wiki model when there are large numbers of people involved, but if the articles are unlikely to change once written, then a more traditional website in which people submit the articles to you and you post them would almost certainly be easier to maintain, as there won't be a need to monitor existing pages for vandalism or inaccurate changes.
 * I strongly advise against setting up a Wikipedia fork; unless you know what you're doing it's a very time consuming process since you'll also have to register your own website and arrange for servers (hosting a site with subpages isn't something you can do with a computer in your basement and a phone line). If you just want to create a set of articles that wouldn't be considered appropriate on Wikipedia and want to retain the "anyone can edit" and wikitext formatting aspects of Wikipedia, there are numerous other non-WMF wiki hosting sites. Fandom (better known by its old name of Wikia) is probably the best known, and your best bet if you're unfamiliar with or unconfident about the technical aspects of wiki design as it's aimed at amateurs—their step-by-step instructions for creating a new wiki are here. If you don't like the look of Fandom/Wikia—or don't like the lack of control ("anyone can edit" applies there as well), there are numerous other wiki hosting services available.
 * If you're intending to do what I think you're planning to do, which is set up a national missing-persons database for the US, then you may want to question whether running it on MediaWiki is actually the best option. There are many advantages to the wiki model when there are large numbers of people involved, but if the articles are unlikely to change once written, then a more traditional website in which people submit the articles to you and you post them would almost certainly be easier to maintain, as there won't be a need to monitor existing pages for vandalism or inaccurate changes.
 * If you're intending to do what I think you're planning to do, which is set up a national missing-persons database for the US, then you may want to question whether running it on MediaWiki is actually the best option. There are many advantages to the wiki model when there are large numbers of people involved, but if the articles are unlikely to change once written, then a more traditional website in which people submit the articles to you and you post them would almost certainly be easier to maintain, as there won't be a need to monitor existing pages for vandalism or inaccurate changes.


 * I'll also add one additional thought that occurs to me if you're planning on going it alone: you're writing about potentially extremely sensitive legal cases, and if you're operating the site yourself you will be personally liable for any potential libel or contempt of court if any actionable allegations are made or repeated on your site. Theoretically you're responsible for material you add to Wikipedia as well, but on Wikipedia it's less likely to be an issue, as there are other people reading your contributions who will hopefully repair or remove anything problematic, and if worst come to worst then provided you were acting in good faith WMF Legal will try to help you out regarding any legal actions. If you're both hosting the site and exercising significant editorial control over the content yourself, then §230 (the quirk of US law that prevents Wikipedia being sued for potentially libellous material it hosts) isn't going to help you. &#8209; Iridescent 08:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)