User talk:Dlthewave/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Dlthewave, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

I know this is late, but there is no deadline here! Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Dlthewave/Horseshoe


A tag has been placed on User:Dlthewave/Horseshoe 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.foupas.com/facebook/?category=%CE%9A%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%81%CE%AC%CE%BA%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed 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 modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines 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. S Philbrick (Talk)  22:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Dlthewave! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 23:32, Sunday, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
 * 🇪🇺 Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
 * 🇯🇵 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
 * Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bozeman, Montana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Sky. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
 * 🇯🇵 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
 * Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
 * Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter
The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter
Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Tag Warring: self-deleted
I had an alert from your post at Talk:List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America, but saw you self-reverted and deleted the ping to me so I presume you're no longer interested in the POV:Section tag or my reasons for it. If you do want more then feel welcome to ping back or post to my TALK.

I did post to the later section "Article Tags" asking for clarification of topic/intent, which may be OBE anyway as the edit-warring has removed that tag, and the section tag, and the image note about dispute. I did put in a few simple items in response, in case you're looking for something basic or to go to the specific poster if you're looking for the reasons behind a specific tag placement. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I decided at the time that the post was unnecessary as there was already a similar discussion taking place. Please disregard it.
 * I'm not familiar with OBE. Could you tell me what that means or direct me to a page that explains it? –dlthewave ☎ 15:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello
I don't believe we've met. Thanks for taking the time to try and rid me from the project, although I'm at a loss to try and work out what I've done to you, personally. Still, I won't let it effect our editing relationship. If I can help you around the project, anytime, please drop me a line. Happy editing!  Cassianto Talk  08:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Woody Allen sexual-assault allegation
I see you've been warned about vandalism before. DO NOT edit other's talk-page comments or vandalize a talk page by unilaterally removing an RfC. Do anything like that again and admins will be notified. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , you've posted a non-neutral, ill-formed RfC. Two people have so far removed or rewritten it, and a third has asked you to do it. Also, please stop calling people who disagree with you sockpuppets or meatpuppets. SarahSV (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I asked you twice what was non-neutral. You wouldn't point to anything. And the fact that you would try to excuse your own attempt at rewriting another editor's post, and another's completely over-the-top vandalism — really, removing an entire RfC you don't like — is simply remarkable. There is no excuse for those actions. The fact that anyone would go to such extreme lengths to sabotage an RfC simply because they don't agree with it is inexcusable.


 * As for "a third has asked you to" remove it: First, that's not something anyone has the right to ask. Second, that editor has a long, often contentious history with me that is, in my opinion, needlessly argumentative. It is a case of "consider the source."


 * Please let the RfC process play out the way it's supposed to. Trying to sabotage an RfC because one doesn't agree with it ... that's just wrong. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When you wrote "Please tell me what is not neutrally worded," I foolishly thought you might be willing to accept a rewrite, and it was faster to show than tell, so I went ahead. SarahSV (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit at ANI
Hi Dlthewave, I reverted your edit at ANI because it appeared to roll back the page to a much earlier version, plus you added your comments to a closed section. If you have any questions, please let me know! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking some comments above, as I misread the diffs. Sorry! Woodroar (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was as surprised as you were when my single-sentence comment turned into 23,000 bytes. Thanks for helping to correct it. –dlthewave ☎ 03:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontier Strip
Thanks for your work on Articles for deletion/Frontier Strip. I'm pretty sure the extension research you did on the editing history of Frontier Strip was the deciding factor in determining the ultimate editorial decision. Thomas H. White (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Dlthewave! Thanks for signing up to to take the AN/I survey. As you don't have email enabled, I am unable to send you the survey link. You can enable email in your preferences, or email me at pearley@undefinedwikimedia.org and I can send it on to the address you use. Regards, Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I enabled email so you can go ahead and send it. Sorry for the inconvenience. –dlthewave ☎ 02:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No inconvenience! Thanks for taking part. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:Signedzzz, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Thanks for your comment on my edit on Fukushima
Of course, I am not going to pursue the change because I see no reason to endure the abuse. Your kind words allow me to move along and not look back. ( Martin | talk • contribs 22:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC))

Good work cleaning up nuclear and radiation accidents
I thought of taking a crack at it but really, I don't have the patience to deal with tedious people on Wikpedia anymore, so it's good to see someone stepping up. Jtrainor (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Tag Warring: self-deleted
I had an alert from your post at Talk:List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America, but saw you self-reverted and deleted the ping to me so I presume you're no longer interested in the POV:Section tag or my reasons for it. If you do want more then feel welcome to ping back or post to my TALK.

I did post to the later section "Article Tags" asking for clarification of topic/intent, which may be OBE anyway as the edit-warring has removed that tag, and the section tag, and the image note about dispute. I did put in a few simple items in response, in case you're looking for something basic or to go to the specific poster if you're looking for the reasons behind a specific tag placement. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I decided at the time that the post was unnecessary as there was already a similar discussion taking place. Please disregard it.
 * I'm not familiar with OBE. Could you tell me what that means or direct me to a page that explains it? –dlthewave ☎ 15:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Need a reliable source for "thousands of rounds"
Please provide a reliable source for "thousands of rounds" because it is the lead paragraph and there are no references used there. Without one, it should not be changed. Thanks. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 18:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now that News.com.au was being used as the source for "thousands." I'm afraid they are the only one, and more credible, US-based sources like CNN and NBC are saying hundreds. So I've changed it to hundreds in the lead and body, with the two new refs. Thanks. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 18:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I tried to add news.com.au to the lead a few minutes ago but my mobile browser botched it up. My apologies. Yes, let's keep it at hundreds.

I noticed your two questions
about the SPLC as a source of information generated out of the List of CSA monuments article and considered adding: 3. Also since the SLPC is an organization whose existence is based 100% on donations, does it have a financial interest in presenting this material in this way and is wikipedia thus aiding in that endeavor? or something like that. To me this is a concern, but this is your posting so I didn't want to just cut in. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added something similar. Does that help? –dlthewave ☎ 01:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"...making more of a mess"
Would you mind removing this portion of the comment? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Colt AR-15
You removed one of my comments with this edit. I've since restored it. Geogene (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk page discussions
The following discussion was moved from User talk:Thewolfchild by Thewolfchild.

"Please stop moving conversations from your user talk page to article talk pages. Regardless of how you choose to operate your talk page, it is the appropriate place to discuss user behavior, and edit summaries such as "this isn't the place" may be confusing to new editors. –dlthewave ☎ 13:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)"


 * I reverted an editor that is not you, yet you contested the revert on my talk page. Reverts to articles should be discussed on the article talk page. So I moved the comment, along with my reply. Another editor, again not you, commented on the remarks I made about the his content, as well as the his remarks about my content, on an article talk page, so again, I moved the comment, along with reply to that talk page. This isn't about "how I choose to operate my talk page", this is about keeping discussions about articles and their content in one place. And if you look at my replies, I am addressing the content, so no, it shouldn't be on my talk page. Further, as I pointed out, neither of these edits were yours, yet you are choosing to involve yourself. This doesn't appear to collegial behaviour on your part, rather more prevocational, despite the fact the last thing I said to you was "I hoped we could move forward and work on the project". Your excuse for all this? "It might confuse new editors" Well, neither of those editors is "new". So please, stop posting comments, on behalf of other editors, to my talk page, when they don't belong there. And also, please stop collapsing, changing and otherwise interfering with my comments on article talk pages. Just focus on article content. Thank you. - the WOLF  child  15:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I see you again collapsed a pair on my posts on an article talk page, making this I believe the third time. I will ask again, that you please not do that. Your edit summary "Collapse non-content-related discussion" and the heading on the collapse template "about editor conduct" is incorrect. Please just focus on the article content and talk page content that serves the article content. There is nothing to be gained by this repetitive, baiting behaviour. Let's please move forward, thank you, - the WOLF  child  02:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like to move forward and focus on article content as well. However, I have trouble understanding how this edit is a step toward improving the article. Let's try to keep discussions about editors in their respective usertalk spaces. –dlthewave ☎ 03:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The edit you've cited has a back and forth about the validity of sources. He's made a comment about the one's I've provided and in return, I've asked him about the ones he's provided. Also, while I was critical of his contributions, I'm not "personalizing" this, but just same, I have asked what parts of my comment he takes issue or would like to see removed. I await an answer on those points, and just recently posted a follow up with ping. So, again, please stop collapsing it. The other section was about the bullet list I reverted. I gave explanation for the edit summary and further explained the revert with cited guidelines in support. I have no idea why you keep collapsing that either, but please stop. When you do it repeatedly, it becomes disruptive. The simple fact is, you have one editor making active additions to an article that another feels are non-neutral and says as much. The first editor feels that is a "personal attack", but really, it's not. If I say "I feel your edits are POV-ish and have an anti-gun tone", that's not an attack. it's a critical comment on the that editors contributions to the article. If I say something more derogatory of his edits, followed by personal insults about his intellects and whatnot, that would be a personal attack. But I haven't done anything of the sort. Just because I'm critical, doesn't mean I'm "personalizing", which is the accusation that seems to pop up often when editors disagree with this particular editor. And by the way... none of these editors are you. I'm not sure why you feel the need to manage this talk page, people are going to disagree, this is a contentious issue and there are going to be disagreements. And despite making no significant changes to the article, I was outright accused of "owning" (I noticed you didn't collapse or otherwise address that). And while those disagreements are typically 'pro-gun' vs. 'anti-gun', this is more of a case of 'unbalanced & non-neutral' vs. 'balanced & neutral". I'd hate to think what would happen if some staunch pro-pun, NRA, 2nd amendment types showed up. I'd probably have the same discussions with them because, as I've said all along, I want the article to stay balanced, neutral, focused on the subject. It's an encyclopaedia article, not a NYT op-ed column. Despite your RfC, (what happened to that btw?) editors are adding more and mass-shooting/assault-whatever info, without consensus or even a discussion. And while that's not "mandatory", it is strongly encouraged (surely you agree with collaboration?). The purpose of your RfC was to see if the community wanted such additions, and before it's even completed. and without any consensus in support, there has been significant content added anyway. Unless your RfC shows a strong consensus in support of this content, most, if not all of it, will have to be removed. That`s why I`ve asked people (repeatedly) to slow down on the mass changes, wait for the RfC, then decide what content should be added, how much of it and in what fashion, based on the RfC. We need to abide by what the community wants, not what a handful editors want. I take it you agree with that ideal? - the WOLF  child  10:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC) (sorry about the length, but I hope this puts the issue to rest - have a good day)

Uncollapse
Dlthewave, since I just undid your collapse change I wanted to say why to avoid any ill will. I understand why you did the collapse but I don't agree that the original comment was off topic. By putting my comment inside of the collapse you negate the reason why I made it. For that reason I put it back outside. It would be a refactoring issue if the reply to my comment didn't come with so it has to come as well. I don't know about you but sometimes when people revert my edits my first thought is along the lines of why do they keep their head in their own tail pipe! I just wanted you to know this wasn't meant to be something like that! Springee (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Project firearms guidelines
Dlthewave, I wanted to thank you for your feedback here []. I think we both have a better feel for where the other is coming from. We may not agree on some of the editorial stuff but your comments made me feel better about trying to work out any disagreements we might have. Springee (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, me again. I was about to reverse this good faith edit [] because the essay in question had previously been proposed and rejected as POVPUSH (see talk page Archive 9). However when I looked into it I forgot that the page had recently been resurrected by a sock. It turns out another sock of the same editor is pushing it again. I've filed a SPI. I suspect the essay will be returned to sandbox state. Just FYI. Springee (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I follow the POV concern. We'll see how the SPI turns out, but it's likely that a non-sock editor would return it to essay space in that event. –dlthewave ☎ 19:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Bozeman, Montana & help for bio Arthur Alphin
Hello Dlthewave, coincidentally, I saw that you are from Montana and worked on the article Bozeman, Montana. Also coincidentally i tried to fix a bio for Arthur Alphin who is living in Bozeman (see his CV). Perhaps you can do something for both articles ??? f.e. in Bozeman,_Montana and for the bio. I already tried to get help there. I would by lucky if you might help. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I won't be of much help in that area. Be aware that the self-published CV may be useful for tracking down further information about Alphin but should not be used as a source for mainspace content. –dlthewave ☎ 22:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice
Please keep your aspersions to yourself. Also please don't post on my talk page again. Please keep all comments of me to the appropriate article talk page on topic. Thank you. -72bikers (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
I really needed an out and you gave it to me! I appreciate that. I wish you good luck with your editing chores.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Legality of cannabis by country
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Legality of cannabis by country. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

sources: Dynamics in Gun Ownership and Crime – Evidence from the Aftermath of Sandy Hook
Hello, in order to improve article you might use:
 * Schindler, MP David; Dynamics in Gun Ownership and Crime –Evidence from the Aftermath of Sandy Hook, January 18, 2018 (online-PDF 2,59 MB)
 * HTH --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

AR-15 talk
I had a feeling you'd be the one to respond to that, and thanks by the way, but as a suggestion, wouldn't atop & abot be more suitable than hat & hab? Just a thought... - the WOLF  child  03:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Off topic?
Do you have the right editor? I asked that editor to not derail that thread with off-topic comments (which they were). I invited him to continue discussing his edits if he were willing, (but not in that thead), and of everything on that page, that is the one post you characterize as a "rant"? (kind of insulting). Why is it you are following my edits and posting these admin-like warnings and even hatting some in a 'clerking-type fashion? Can you explain this ongoing behavior of yours? Thank you - the WOLF  child  04:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dawenkou culture
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dawenkou culture. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This looks like campaigning
Dlthewave, I would be careful about edits like this []. That discussion isn't a RfC and the members of the gun politics project are almost all sympathetic with inclusion of such material and at a rate far more so vs the participants we've seen at similar RfCs. Also, you didn't notify the more obvious Project Firearms. The article in question is clearly about a gun, not politics related to guns. I would ask that you either remove the notice or make it a RfC and go through the normal notification process.

I know you are doing this in good faith but this was one of my concerns with the gun politics project. My concern grew when I saw that the project tags weren't just added to obvious articles about gun politics (gun laws, stand your ground etc) but was extended to many articles about guns themselves. Edit: I just noticed that the M1911 article is of interest to three projects which weren't notified but not listed as "of interest" to the Gun Politic's project. Springee (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, I will add the project tag.
 * It is up to project participants to decide which topics are within scope, and we've determined that criminal use is within the realm of gun politics. I find it useful and appropriate to include a list of open discussions on the project page. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you notify all the projects or none. Like I said, when we look at the list of Gun Politic's participants I think the prevailing POV is clear.  Yes, people have made a similar claim about Project Firearms but it does have a much larger list of editors.  Please be sure to notify the other projects if you wish to keep the notification at Project Gun Politics.  It should eliminate the appearance of favoritism or campaigning.  Springee (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also ask that you do the same with this notification. [].  Springee (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to keep it as is for now, but I'm open to discussing it if uninvolved editors will weigh in. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest asking... I'm not sure where. The AR-15 discussion isn't important enough to bother with but the M1911 discussion hits on a core issue that has been the subject of a number of RfCs etc.  Notifying a single project that you created and is followed almost exclusively by editors who historically share your POV on articles looks really bad to me.  I know you aren't doing this in bad faith but the results may be the same.  Springee (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to you to raise your concerns at the appropriate forum. –dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page
As I have already ask you nicely, please keep all comment to article talk pages. You can be sanction for violating this request. I will let this one slide, but if you violate this again I will bring it to the attention of the admins on a noticeboard. Thank you. -72bikers (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have not read whatever you placed on my talk page. I am now going to take this to a noticeboard for sanction against you. You clearly do not understand Wiki policy of user talk pages. You have been clearly warned many times to not post on my personal talk page and keep comments to article talk pages ,. -72bikers (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've taken this issue to ANi so here is the notification. Legacypac (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Frustrated
Hey, I just wanted to reach out and say that yes, I'm frustrated with some of the recent articles we've been involved with. But I also wanted to say even when we don't agree I still respect your efforts. Springee (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Unintentional Canvassing
I wanted to let you know that I'm going to post a longer reply to the ANI where I'm accused of canvassing. As part of that I've noted that your edit here [] actually is a canvassing violation. It was unintentional but consider the facts. The discussion here[] had two proposals, the one was to include nearly identical information in the AR-15 style rifle section. The other was the Port Arther material. Other than missing you (see below) I notified all editors who had participated in the header discussion and the Proposal 1 section. Proposal 2 was an unrelated discussion. That means you need to justify that such a notification was supported by WP:APPNOTE. Since most of the Port Arthur editors you notified were opposed the editors who participated in both discussions one could reasonably assume that was going to stack the vote. We've already seen this with at least one of the respondents. I don't for a moment think you were acting in bad faith (the section above still stands) but I do think you did canvass unintentionally. I'm going to say that later so I wanted you to know upfront.

How did I miss you? Well there were several long back and forth's in the discussion section of Proposal one. Niteshift had already commented and I already added his name. I missed yours in a reply to Niteshift. Springee (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Yes, the recent back-and-forth has become quite frustrating for all involved. I understand WW's concern that only a certain group of editors were notified, and I can see how your apparent canvassing could be the result of a simple mistake as well as a different interpretation of which conversation was relevant. I'll leave it to uninvolved editors to decide. In situations like this, I think the best possible ANI outcome would be a clear explanation of what should be done in this situation so that we don't keep arguing about it in the future.
 * In general I think it would be good to get a wider group of editors involved in these discussions. As it stands, it always seems to be the same group of editors making the same opposing points. Short of opening an RfC it's tough to bring in more voices without the appearance of canvassing. –dlthewave ☎ 01:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with the wider group. I would really like some input on ways we can come up with more consistent ways to judge content and handle the same old arguments.  We've had the debate about what level of crime coverage is correct.  That said, I see that you are persistent in your views but I appreciate that you are polite as well.  I typically figure we will disagree but respectful disagreement is OK (but not as good as you just agreeing with me...) Springee (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Target
You asked: "I take it this is related to an ongoing dispute involving some sort of "target"?" Yes, that's exactly what it is. In principle, it amounts to Trump's lawyer(s) making an end run to short circuit the Mueller investigation by limiting the ability to collect evidence. In this case, a friend of the alleged guilty party has put the police on trial. It's about a just-closed MfD, so this is moot now, but in the future this should not be allowed because the target has a COI in the case, just as the accused in a criminal case has no right to dictate the terms of the investigation. One can wonder if the way this was set up can be considered good faith or gaming the system? I'm a bit split on that question: The timing and persons involved (many "friends" showed up) favors the latter, but a formalized interpretation of "how long is long enough" is a good thing, so some good can come from the flawed process. In the end, justice will prevail. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wedding dress of Meghan Markle
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wedding dress of Meghan Markle. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Viola FBI section
Thanks for adding that Viola in the "controversies" section. Is there any way you can find a way to fit this picture in there? File:Viola Liuzzo.jpg Civil right activist Viola Liuzzo was wrongfully smeared with false claims I noticed some of the controversy sections have a picture used. I want one used for the Viola section if possible. Thanks. Kahtar22 (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the image with a toned-down caption. I hope Thewolfchild hasn't scared you away from editing this article, they can be quite abrasive and recently received a topic ban for similar behavior. –dlthewave ☎ 13:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being helpful. Could you also do the same on the J Edgar Hoover page? Viola is mentioned in the last paragraph in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover#Reaction_to_civil_rights_groups section. Do you know how to add images to the left side of the page? I've seen wikipedia pages that have done this. Thanks again for everything. You've been helpful. Kahtar22 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ The left-aligned version would be Viola Liuzzo.jpg was wrongfully smeared with false claims]] . –dlthewave ☎ 18:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Dlthewave. Just to let you know, I have hidden the non-free file from being used on this talk page per WP:NFCC because non-free content cannot be displayed here per WP:NFCC, WP:UP and WP:TPG.
 * I have also removed the file from the articles you added it to because such usage is not really allowed per WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and item 6 of WP:NFC. Although Wikipedia's non-free content use policy does allow non-free images of deceased individuals to be used, per item 10 of WP:NFCI this is typically only when the photo, etc. is being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the individual in question; for this reason, the non-free use in Viola Liuzzo is acceptable. However, the non-free use of such images in other articles tends to require a much stronger justification than simple identification, and typically it is considered that the image/photo, etc. itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary to provided context required by WP:NFCC. There's no content in any of those other articles which requires that the reader actually see the photo of Liuzzo to be understood, so there's no reason that a link to the stand-alone article about her cannot be sufficient per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:FREER.
 * If you disagree with this assessment, please provide a speparate specific non-free use rationale which explains how the way you want to use the file satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria for each use of the file. Providing such a rationale for each use is just one step as explained in WP:JUSTONE, and if others may subsequently challenge the validity of the non-free use raitonale either by tagging the file with di-disputed fair use rationale or by nominating the file for discussion at WP:FFD. If you have any questions about this you can ask them here, at WP:MCQ or WT:NFC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Pinging who asked me to insert the image. –dlthewave ☎ 03:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of Syria
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flag of Syria. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne. Legobot (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment removal?
May I ask why you removed my comment pointing out the magazine loophole has been around since the 1990s? --Thegunkid (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Thegunkid (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comment diff was put directly into the article instead of the talk page, which I assume was an error. –dlthewave ☎ 18:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see now; that's what i get for trying to edit from my phone since Wikipedia isn't mobile friendly at all especially when it comes to accessing talk pages and editing. --Thegunkid (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Thegunkid (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Article page
Please keep any comments to the appropriate article page and not my talk page, thank you. All I did was just make a easy visual reference of the count, I did not offer up any determination.

I presume this is what you are referring to.
 * "running tallies" of RfC !votes such as these are discouraged and may be viewed as an inappropriate attempt to influence the outcome. I would recommend reverting and not doing this in the future.
 * So an administrator spoke and explained in detail why most of the "No/exclude" votes are invalid. So who is going to include the text? Or do we need another administrator?Farcaster
 * At the time of this count, it's 14 to "exclude" the content, 12 to "include", and 2 participants (MastCell and Thewellman) with no conclusion offered. However, dropping invalid arguments (e.g., votes to "exclude" due to Anecdotal, Not RS, MEDRS, and "I know better than the NYT"), at least 12 of the 14 "exclude" votes would carry no weight. This puts us at +10 (12-2) in favor of adding.Farcaster
 * Most of the "No" votes have been dismissed. Some argued the NYT was not a reliable source, those count as zero. Some argued MEDRS, that was dismissed, those count as zero. Some argued their own expertise in place of the NYT, those count as zero. Not even close. Again, what's the next step? Farcaster


 * I assume you meant to leave that at his talk page? Cheers72bikers (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that thread is another example of premature tallies and comments by several users including yourself. I would have addressed it if Mastcell had not ended the conversation.

Viola Liuzzo
Sorry for responding to this so late. Is there any way you can think of that we could put a new picture of Liola up on those pages? I'd really like to have an image of her for those pages. Thanks. Kahtar22 (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be good to include an image. I believe we would need to find something in the public domain (if such a photo exists) and upload it. –dlthewave ☎ 17:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It appeared you agreed to the proposal which would allow any source to be used even when they don't mention any marketing claims. But in the other RfC you disagreed. The original RfC is poorly worded and is asking for permission to use any source to critique any claim even when those sources don't mention anything about marketing. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I replied on talk page. There is an overwhelming number of MEDRS sources that do directly address the marketing claims. Therefore, I don't think the future article should allow the use of sources that do not directly address the marketing claims to argue against sources that do address the claims. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read your general discussion comments at the RfC as well as your response to my !vote. Your opinion has been taken into account. There is no need to discuss it here. –dlthewave ☎ 18:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response. I wasn't sure if the article was on your watchlist. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

== Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions ==

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Everything Is Love
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Everything Is Love. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Edinburgh Central (Scottish Parliament constituency)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Edinburgh Central (Scottish Parliament constituency). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Unneeded warnings
Dlthewave, This was really not a needed warning. []. WW was the editor who brought the subject of editor behavior (unnecessarily) on the article talk page. [] The issue was over and nothing needed be said but WW chimed in. A simple reminder would have been sufficient but your warning was overly threatening and just not needed. If the disputed edit was restored then this would be a reasonable issue. As is, we should just let it drop. Sorry if this comes across as antagonistic in and of itself. I just don't want to see things blow up again. Springee (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again this editor has left a unfounded warning on my talk page, after numerous requests to not do so, policy does support this request that a admin suggested. As Springee has stated WW was the editor who brought the subject of editor behavior (unnecessarily) on the article talk page, after his unfounded warning on my page as well. I am curious did you leave that same warning on ww talk page? I will once again ask politely do not post on my talk page. You have not shown the ability to discern what a legitimate reason would be, is the reason for said request. -72bikers (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: July 2018
  July 2018

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> DISCUSSION REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">WikiProject Conservatism Comes Under Fire

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.

At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."

Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.

Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story) - <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> ARTICLES REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Margaret Thatcher Makes History Again

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> RECENT RESEARCH

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Research About AN/I

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by 

Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey. The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:


 * 53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
 * "Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
 * "Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."

In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here. (Discuss this story)

Delivered: 09:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vegetarianism
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vegetarianism. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox criminal
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox criminal. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban
Curchoe was simply enforcing WP:EL policy, Johnson was simply enforcing WP:LR policy. WP:BANEX states I can fix "obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons". These violated 2 of the 3 core content policies Wikipedia operates by, which BLP emphasizes. External links not at the end violate NPOV, rotted links violate Verifiability. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)