User talk:Corbynz

Hans-Joachim Marseille
Nicknames are not bolded or highlighted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC).

Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille and Hans-Joachim Marseille
See discussion. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

Block quotations
Hello there! I noticed that you removed the block quotation formatting at Tony Scott (here and here). I've restored it because according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style on quotations, "a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length)" should be formatted as a block quotation". Cliff Smith 16:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony Scott
Hi there. About Tony Scott: A cited source, an article by The Hollywood Reporter, says this: "Los Angeles County coroner spokesman Ed Winters tells The Hollywood Reporter that Scott left two separate notes for his family and friends. One note, discovered inside the director's black Toyota Prius, contained a list of people to contact, and a separate note found in Scott's office contained specific messages to friends and family. "There was a suicide note to loves [sic] ones and a list with several names and numbers," Winter says, adding that neither of the notes contained mentions of health issues. The reason for Scott taking his own life remains unknown."

This means that the notes Scott left behind made no mention of any health issues. This does not mean that the notes Scott left behind did or did not provide any motive explaining why he took his life. They could have, but the source does not say either way. Therefore, I have changed the wording in the given section of the article to reflect this, as it did prior to your edit. Cliff Smith 00:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Bert Trautmann
I very much disagree that the lead is too long; a single paragraph for a 40-odd kB article is woefully inadequate. The guidelines at Manual_of_Style/Lead_section recommend far more than that, and for a featured article, three to four paragraphs is the norm.

By "repetitive", do you mean that the information in the lead is also included in the body of the article? If so, that is the whole point, what with the lead being a standalone summary of what comes beneath. A lead that does not mention the thing for which Trautmann is most famous (breaking his neck in the 1956 Cup Final) is not fit for purpose. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
The Daily Mail article about Mark Pritchard has issues with WP:BLPSOURCES. It makes claims about Mark and Sondra Pritchard that are potentially libellous and cannot be verified from the evidence that the Mail article has offered. See Talk:Mark Pritchard (politician) for details.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Rick Rescorla
I have started a consensus discussion on the article talk page regarding the sectioning matter. If I have not accurately summarized your viewpoint, feel free to alter that part of the post.

The section issue aside, why do you keep adding removing the punctuation from the sentence "On returning to London and civilian life, he joined the Metropolitan Police Service" ?

And why do you keep adding a period to the end of the previous sentence after the citation? Punctuation goes before the citation, not after, as indicated by WP:PAIC, and indeed, there already is one there. Nightscream (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In looking over your last revert, I see that the sentence that begins "On returning to London and civilian life...." has no period at the end, but in looking at the saved article, I see that there is indeed a period. I don't know why that period isn't visible in the diff. Sorry about that.


 * However, the second issue is the second period at the end of the following sentence:


 * It was during the latter post that he met and forged a "life-altering friendship" with American soldier Daniel J. Hill, who inspired Rescorla to join the U.S. Army and fight in Vietnam[4] in order to fight the communists.[3].


 * You indeed added that second period in your last edit/revert. I wasn't sure if this was done deliberately or what, and I'm not trying to make a huge issue out of it, but because you kept reverting it, along with the sectioning matter, even after I pointed it out to you in my edit summaries, I didn't know if you were being deliberately spiteful, or if you were generally unaware of this, and I didn't want to fix it if you were going to revert it again. Can I assume you're not going to revert my removal of the second period?


 * Btw, six other editors have stated in the consensus discussion that (and I'm summarizing here) that the UK and US military material don't need their own Level 1 sections, but could be put in subsections of a military career section. Is that a fair compromise to you? Let me know.


 * Also, please don't forget to sign your talk page posts. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Lufthansa Flight 181 - Luftwaffe
Didn't you check where the link Luftwaffe takes you? This is definately not the organization Schumann served in. Will correct the link. Alandeus (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Masuria
Please

1) Stop removing well sourced text. You can't claim something is "unsubstantiated" when there's half a dozen reliable sources sitting right there on the table.

2) Please stop edit warring. On this page and others.

3) Please use the talk page.

Thanks.  Volunteer Marek  17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Masuria
You have violated 3RR rule on Masuria I have reported you, as you seem to be rejecting attempts to discuss the issue.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Masuria. Discretionary sanctions notice under WP:ARBEE
Hello Corbynz. You've made five reverts in two days at our article on Masuria, an area that has been disputed in the past between Germany and Poland. Be aware that any revert-warring in Eastern Europe that seems to have nationalist motivation or effects can be sanctioned under the WP:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe decision. You are advised not to repeat your last revert, and to get consensus for any further changes concerning government repressions that may or may not have occurred at various times. If you disagree about quality of sources, you can raise that at WP:RSN. This notice is pursuant to the edit warring complaint closed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=574181287 here]. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Your recent editing history at German Air Force shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - BilCat (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice
This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Arlott quotes
I agree that the most famous quotes by John Arlott ought to be in the article, but you've provided rather a lot, and I fear that before long someone is likely to come along and remove the section on the grounds that the number is excessive. Could you be a bit more selective? It would also help if you could provide references, as this would help to show sceptics that the quotes are both genuine and well-known. JH (talk page) 16:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

TheFamousPeople.com as a source
Hi Corbynz. I noticed that you recently used thefamouspeople.com.com as a source for biographical information in Holliday Grainger. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pamela Stephenson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nicholas Ball. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)