User talk:Epeefleche/Archive 4

Re: Your Welcome Message
You posted this on my talk page, presumably in reference to my edit on the |2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre, claiming that I removed content without an explanation. This is absurd, since you actually responded to aforementioned "nonexistent" explanation |explanation. Perhaps I was unclear in my explanation, but that said, it's clear that you have an obvious bias in the matter and your intimidation tactics are frankly unbelievable. Don't run around telling people that their contributions constitute "vandalism" just because they infringe upon your personal beliefs and think you can get away with it because you are targeting new users. Kellyabt94 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That was a response to your suggesting you would - after a NYT ref was added - delete it, but it was poorly worded. It should have said "appropriate explanation." On that, you are right, and perhaps we were both unclear. But the key point, as mentioned in my other post on the matter, was that one should not delete NYT refs and the text they support because we personally question the NYT. Again, welcome. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Israel National Council for the Child
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Harassment


Hi, I hatted your section "Suggestions?" on the Harassment policy talk page. The reason being is that complaints about harassment probably won't be noticed on that page, and don't exactly belong there. I would recommend talking to the administrator you mention in the thread, or going to ANI if you feel you are being harassed. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to un-hat it, respectfully. I want input from readers of that page as to what the best approach is -- for example, as you suggest (thanks). As to my next steps, and as to what to do in that situation when the editor does not want to be warned. Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

File:François-Joseph Navez - The Incredulity of Saint Thomas - Google Art Project.jpg

Your aggressive harassment
Stop your harassment of me NOW! Unless you cease I will report you. I have already warned you to stay off my talk page, yet you persist in posting your harassments, this being the latest. This is your FINAL WARNING. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This should go to ANI. Tiptoethrutheminefield made the same blustery threats to "report me" but it was all bluff. The fact is, his pattern of wikihounding has been noted before, as when both and  pointed out that Tiptoethrutheminefield wasn't satisfied to fight with me at Articles for deletion/Lindy West, so checked my recent edit history and followed me over to Talk:List of German inventions and discoveries to take the extraordinary position of supporting the notorious sock puppeteer Europefan/GLGerman. Purportedly because of an expansive inclusionist philosophy which Tiptoethrutheminefield had suddenly adopted in order to have something to fight about.This hounding and battlefield behavior isn't going to stop until this goes to ANI for sanctions from the admins. He thinks all he has to do is delete warnings and threaten you back and he will get away with it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is some of the background to my concern about being hounded by Tip.

Since a dispute weeks ago, Tip followed me around the Project to confront my edits. At articles he had never edited before. For which he was warned by sysop Callanecc, among others (see here).

Tip's latest efforts included following me to an article today, and to my DYK nomination of this article, to confront my edits.

When I raised my concerns about hounding to him on his talkpage, he above warned me to stay off his talkpage .... and then tagged the above article I had worked on recently (with a dubious tag), and !voted against the article's DYK nomination I had made. Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Tiptoe, having been warned in the past by a sysop that if he were to "continue to follow Epeefleche's" edits he may be blocked from editing for "harassment", has now been blocked for "hounding another editor; egregious personal attack". Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be wise, my having advised Tiptoe to give you space, for you to avoid commenting on them and hold yourself voluntarily to the same standard? Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. Advice taken. My goal was only to inform followers of this conversation, and editor Bratland who contributed to it, of the dry facts. Thanks for the advice. Epeefleche (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi
Please take a look at the article Carolina Neurath. Any help is welcomed. :) Merry Christmas to you.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take another look at the article. I think I have made some mistake with the dates at the references. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. And if you have any improvements for my article at DYK as well, that would be great. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dates
Please not apply American month day year format to articles related to Australia, as you did at 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. Australia uses day month year format, and WP:MOSDATE quite clearly says to use the applicable date format for articles directly relevant to a particular country. Additionally, description of a person by another person as a "terrorist" does not constitute a motive, even if the motive was terrorism. Consequently, a number of your edits have been reverted.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for hitting the wrong date format button. The Prime Minister's indication that the killer was a terrorist does seem to me to be an attribution of motive for the act. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. I didn't make the connection that it was actually you that botched the dates causing the confusion with the intervening edits in the first place. So ultimately, it's your own fault that the statement about Abbott was inadvertently removed from the main text. Apology accepted. Of course, asserting Abbott's statement that the killed was a "terrorist" in the motive parameter of the infobox absolutely is "an attribution of motive for the act", but Abbott is not qualified to make that assessment for the purposes of the article here per WP:LABEL.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Your deletion of RS material is the fault of an unrelated date change? I made a mistaken date change. But surely your deletion of RS-supported material was your mistake. And actually, as to who is "qualified" to term a person a terrorist, I expect the leader of the country in question is better situated than you or I or talking heads, as to events within his country. And who in the world -- other than RSs (which have done the same) -- do you think is "qualified"? The head of the police, or his top psychologist ... both of which ultimately report indirectly to the Prime Minister?  Epeefleche (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * After fixing the incorrect date formatting, I inadvertently didn't restore some of the material (though not all of the extraneous material about Monis was necessary) because I had to get ready to go out. No one was prevented from patching in the other information, and it wasn't a grand conspiracy. It would indeed have been much simpler if the false attribution of motive hadn't been intermingled with the botched dates, and I'm not claiming you did so maliciously. It just didn't help.
 * I'm a little surprised that you need to ask what might constitute an 'expert' in regard to terrorism. Abbott's statement was not based on advice of experts but was something he offered off the cuff in a news interview while the event was still unfolding. Experts have said that the perpetrator's actions were like those of a 'lone wolf', but that it "was not about religion and neither was it a terrorist attack".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We all make mistakes. We don't all say, however: "It's your fault I made a mistake -- because you made a mistake first." Nor is that an accurate statement. As to your assertion that Abbot's statement was not based on advice on experts -- you are spouting what is at best OR (and at worst, something much worse). You have no way of knowing. While at the same time you have reason to expect that the head of government is well informed by those reporting to him as to the thinking of the experts under him on the most important event of his month. It's not good form to assert what his statement was based on -- when you are making that up, and don't have any support for that statement other than your raw conjecture. One last point -- please don't close discussions, or make moves that are the subject of !votes, where you are an involved party ... it is better form, as with AfDs and other !votes, to let an uninvolved party close the discussion or make the move the move. Thanks.  Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really care that your invented quote isn't an accurate statement.
 * I have already provided you with a source indicating that the event has not been considered a 'terrorist attack' by experts in the field. Abbott's statement was made during the event, before there could possibly be any final determination on the individual's motives, and those motives were subsequently given by experts as something other than terrorism.
 * I have not recently closed any discussions. I did recently rename an unrelated article to fix capitalisation in the title.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Abbott called him a terrorist subsequent to the event. Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's possible that Abbott also called him a terrorist subsequent to the event. It wasn't the source I had in mind. In any case, Abbott says a lot of things, and his comments were not of a technical nature suitable for calling the event 'terrorism' within the confines of WP:LABEL.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's more than possible. It's quite clearly the case -- check the Financial Times article, among others. In fact, what's possible is that he held off doing so until after the event. As far as your dismissive comments regarding what the head of state of Australia says, that your POV and OR, and your "not of a technical nature suitable for ... wp:label is just your made-up statement supporting your POV, much like your over-statements flagged above, that you submit as truisms when they're nothing of the sort. And on the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis page you took action as editors -- including you -- were !voting, which is not best practices ... you should let others who are uninvolved do the honors.  Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tony Abbott says a lot of things (occasionally some of them are even true). But more broadly, when politicians make such announcements to the general public, they are in laymans terms and don't constitute professional expert opinion. Such statements don't meet the threshold for WP:LABEL. I don't really care if you don't accept that, because I'm not the only editor of the article.
 * As to your other objection, I took action only after there was clear majority support for not calling the event 'terrorism' unless/until available from reliable sources.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You say lots of things. But saying, dismissively, "Prime Minister X says lots of things" is just editor OR. The PM is informed by experts. And by his police authorities. You really would fashion better arguments if you didn't state your POV as truisms. As to you taking action in an ongoing discussion -- one in which you !voted (and yes, accidentally deleted RS-supported material leaning the other way) -- as I said, that's not cricket.  You are involved. The conversation is ongoing. New facts can come to light. New editors can add their views. It is simply not appropriate for you as an involved editor to weigh consensus (not just !vote-count), and take action. The same as it would not be appropriate for you to do that at an AfD where you yourself !voted. However clear you believe, despite your clear COI, the objective consensus is. Epeefleche (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's all well and good that 'new facts come to light'. But that does not justify 'guessing' that it's 'terrorism' and then. I removed the terrorism template because it was not (and still isn't) supported by reliable sources. If/when that occurs, the template may be added. And tabloids and opinion pieces do not constitute 'reliable sources' for such bold claims.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You were guessing and engaging in OR, as discussed above. The discussion was an ongoing discussion. It had not ended. You were an involved editor; having !voted. It's not your place to, with a COI like that, short-circuit an ongoing conversation by acting on what you personally view as a consensus-in-the-middle-of-an-ongoing-discussion.  Where not all editors have !voted. What is it about COI that you don't understand here? If you are really of the continued view that you, !voting in an ongoing discussion, have the right to cut it short and act on your view, rather then let an uninvolved editor close it after the discussion has run its course, then we should move this discussion elsewhere so other editors can weigh in. Epeefleche (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I removed the template because there was no basis for it being there. That is the case even if there had not been the 'votes', which clearly indicated in favour of removing the template anyway. The article is not finished, and my removal of the template at a time it shouldn't have been there does not preclude future use of the template.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This has nothing do do with crystal ball. Have you read that? Anyway, this has to do with you, an editor who has !voted, and has a COI, closing an ongoing discussion. If you think that is appropriate behavior on your part, and would exercise it again, we should bring this to the appropriate page for input from other editors. Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't close the discussion. Editors are still free to indicate whether the feel the template should be included. I am, however, closing this discussion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You took action, on the very item being discussed. While the discussion was still ongoing. While you had !voted and had a COI. What's next -- are you going to !vote on an AfD and delete the article yourself, mid-discussion? You don't understand the problem with that? --Epeefleche (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi
I hope you had a great Christmas! Could you please take a look at the article Karolina Olsson. I took a look at the article that you have on DYK and did a few tweaks. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.155.45 (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The conclusion was (drumroll) No violation Two reverts in over a month is not edit warring. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Balsam of Peru
Epeefleche you are wrong. My contribution is neither original research nor synthesis of published material. As a matter of fact, it has been common knowledge to somebody versed in the art for more than a century. If you have reasons to question the contents due to ignorance of the subject matter then, a prudent thing to do is to request citations to the contributor and, also, there is such thing as adding "citation needed" next to a questionable claim. However, you quickly deleted the contribution in it's entirety, something that you seem to do quite often and, which is akin to vandalism. If you cannot resist your urge to delete other editor's contributions, I suggest you notify the contributor of your concern and, after a reasonable time elapsed (such as, for example, a couple of weeks or a month) with no response from the contributor or, from other constructive editors who would add your requested sources, go ahead and indulge. 98.217.155.45 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On my Talk page you claim that I did not provide appropriate references. By now, I am talking about the deletion of: "such as for bonding lenses and other optical elements made out of glass to each other". Even if the cited references do not list all the uses of balsam of Peru in optics besides the most common use in microscopy glass, it is obvious, at least with some common sense, or logic reasoning, that balsam of Peru could also be used to glue other optical elements that match the properties described in the remainder of the text. Initially inspired by having used balsam of Peru myself after having learned it from older literature, I added what was a logical clarification to what the citations implied. I didn't have to have known this, I could have deduced it. However, it may not occur to some readers, such as yourself, that balsam of Peru can also be used for bonding lenses and other optical elements made out of glass to each other. I hope that with some clarifications, those statements became obvious to you too. It is worth including them for those readers that may not imagine those other obvious and useful uses. Wikipedia allows deductive reasoning within an article, without labeling it as either original research or synthesis of published material. While there are cases where your kind of insistence is useful and necessary, here it is simply disruptive. [I should point out that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious].  98.217.155.45 (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but your "logical clarification" is wrong. Just because something could be done doesn't mean that it has any utility. I see that pace your previous assertion you don't have any professional experience in optics. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry you don't have a clue about this matter. Balsam of Peru has been used in this fashion in optics since the nineteenth century, as far as I know, and it could have been earlier. Simply because my citations don't say it as explicitly as you would like, it does not preclude the use of common sense to understand it. And that is what I ended up using because of your insistence about the specificity of the citations, and that is what I called "clarification". And yes, I've used balsam of Peru and I've seen it used by others in optics before. 98.217.155.45 (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I stand with X. And what he wrote on your talk page and on his talk page. Please do not add Original Research to wp articles.  Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop your harrasment and your edit warring. Reliable sources were provided, so there is no original research, and what they implied was added using basic logic and common sense and, not by combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion, so there is no synthesis of published material. As it was indicated to you before, Wikipedia allows deductive reasoning within an article, without labeling it as either original research or synthesis of published material. The main point here is that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious. With your pedantry, you are being disruptive and, with your threats, harassing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's harrasment and edit warring policy by repeatedly overriding contributions, as you did at Balsam of Peru, you may be blocked from editing. 98.217.155.45 (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see the comment of the other two editors who also disagreed with you, at the article, the article talkpages, and editor talkpages. Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Carolina Neurath
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Karolina Olsson
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

PC reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic content vs. horror story
Hi Epeefleche!

First point to make: thanks for being on top of things. It's good to know someone's looking over our shoulders when editing (especially given the fact that English is not my native language.)

However... I feel some point of discussion regarding your revert on the changes I had made to the article on [], as you notified here:. I still strongly feel that the script-like description of the video footage of his execution (the only things lacking to make it a script being the timestamps) is not to be considered enyclopedic content. I was under the assumption we had a Non-Enyclopedic Content guideline on WP, but I cannot find it anymore. : S

I have *never* seen a description like this before --of anyone's death-- not in articles on the execution of Nazi criminals after the Neurenberg trials, not in the article on Saddam Hussein or his halfbrother, etc. (That last one would actually make a juicy description for sure.) What is your rationale behind the inclusion of that description, or rather the necessity to keep it? Do you actually feel that it contributes in a general sense?

Furthermore you pointed out that I had not annotated my edit/deletion, but as far as I recall I actually did put my reasons for my intervention in there (casu quo non-enclyopedic content). I usually book spelling and/or grammar edits as Minor Edits, and annotate larger ones.

I hope you can clear up some of that confusion. In the meanwhile, take care!

Kind regards, Mfhulskemper (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. Congratulations for your excellent English, given it is not your first language. A few thoughts.


 * The argument via bald assertion of "its not encylopaedic" is typically, as here, code for "Idon'tlikeit". And Idon'tlikeit" is not an acceptable argument at WP.


 * What is "encyclopaedic" for WP purposes is what the RSs state. By following that, we accept the judgment of RSs in this regard. And avoid the personal views of editors, who otherwise simply assert that whatever they do not like is not encyclopaedic. That is the test. You may dislike all manner of bad things that RSs report, and that WP in turn reports. That's not reason to delete it. Once we start allowing editors to force their own POV on what RS material they like (so its OK to reflect), we will be in trouble. Once we start doing that, we might as well prepare for deletion of articles on porn stars, Armenians, abortions, climate change, the Holocaust, Darwinism, and art reflecting naked people -- because individual editors don't like them as well. Your deletion is not supported by wp guidelines. You ask above what my rationale is -- this is it.


 * This is all RS-supported material, reported in RSs -- including, largely, NBC News.


 * You assert that I said that you didn't give a reason for your deletion. That's not the case. I said that you didn't give a valid reason.


 * As WP:DONTLIKE states: "'While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is 'unencyclopedic' (see Just unencyclopedic ...). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also Pointing at policy.)'"


 * The fact that you have never seen a description like this before is irrelevant. Have you ever seen a description in the RS press like this? Perhaps the answer is no to that as well.  So what?


 * Plus, here the manner of killing is what a major part of the story is about.


 * Also, please read Other stuff exists. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Epeefleche, back again! Thanks for your arguments -- of which I can definitely see the merits. I will read up on the guidelines you have referenced, and you have my thanks for bettering me (and hopefully WP). I'm not a squeamish person myself (former military and now medical, so I'm not exactly a 'virgin' in the matter at hand), and the faulty deletion had nothing to do with personal preference(s) and/or sensitivities by themselves. Just wanted to let you know. I would like to endorse an increase in articles on porn stars, Armenians, abortions, climate change, the Holocaust, Darwinism, and art rflecting naked people -- although the latter is not even required to contain any art, as far as I am concerned.


 * Thanks again, and I'm going to read up on circular reasoning (again...).Take care, till our paths cross again! Mfhulskemper (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice chatting with you. I'm always impressed by those, as you, who engage in discourse open to reconsidering their positions, and not just seeking to dig in and defend them. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ashton Carter
Howdy, I worked on combining some references but you didn't like what I did so your reverted them. I will not try to combine anymore references as I do not want to get into an edit war with you. However, I would point you toward WP:CITE so you can see how to make it so duplicate references can be combined.

Additionally, accusing me of OR or supposition is not WP:AGF. The reference you cite is contradicted by several more references. In fact, the medal your source cites as being awarded to Carter is a military decoration that is not awarded to civilians. This source references his four awards for the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, Gold Palm (fourth award) and one award of the CJCS Joint Distinguished Civilian Service Award. This ref indicates four awards, this ref indicates four awards. At best, there is contradictory information out there. At worst, the SECDEF's current biography is incorrect. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I appreciate you combining references.  I just don't view it as helpful to delete refs from sentence A. Even if the refs are in a later sentence, B.  The deleted refs are acceptable, and appropriate, as they were.  And by deleting them, we can unintentionally set the stage for problems thereafter. Sentence C, for example, may be inserted in between those two sentences, and NOT be supported by the refs in Sentence B. But now there is no way of knowing that the B refs apply to A.  Also, the sentences can, in editing, become split into different paras.  Same problem.


 * As to your second comment, you are conflating two distinct matters. OR is not bad faith.  Nor is supposition bad faith. One can certainly, in good faith, engage in OR with honest intentions. Or in supposition.  I assumed you edited in good faith. Of course. I thought it was good faith OR, or good faith supposition. As the most recent ref, from a high-level RS, supported the text that you changed.


 * As to the facts, correct me if I am wrong, but the source I used is I believe the most recent. As such, the fact that prior refs reflected that he had four medals does not prove that he does not have at this point five medals. It's not manifestly contradictory for ref A to say he has four medals, and ref B to say he has five medals, when ref A was written earlier in time. Also, the source I used was I expect as reliable as we could get for this fact -- the Department which awards the medals, so it is not as though the earlier refs are higher in quality.  Might there be a mistake? Of course it is possible.  But we reflect the RSs, not "truth".  See Verifiability, not truth.


 * I do appreciate your work, which overall I found very helpful to the article. Many thanks  Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Cletus Seldin
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Central Park Jogger resources
Hi Epeefleche;

I've seen the work you've been doing on the Central Park Jogger article. I did a whole bunch of research into the matter in late 2012 with an eye toward cleaning up an article that I felt lacked comprehensiveness and balance to some extent. I got as far as the research phase and some basic edits before real world issues prevented me from progressing much beyond organizing data from the research. That said, I have a collection of mostly PDF format news articles from various sources, some online, some offline with everything concerning this matter. Just doing a file count in the directory says that I have 375 documents totaling 346 MB. If you're interested, I'm happy to share that with you somehow, through cloud storage or file sync processes. (too big for email I'd say). Let me know if you're interested. Neil916 (Talk) 07:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Neil. I also noticed that it lacked comprehensiveness.  Not sure I will get to the point of taking you up on your offer, but I much appreciate it.  Feel free to of course use the sources yourself, and join in filling out the article.  Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children
I can pass this DYK if you agree to my pruning the article a bit of content that I believe is not of proper encyclopedic value/quality. In its current state this cannot go to the front page; with some judicious trimming it can. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Drmies -- I always welcome constructive edits of others, and you in particular. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope I haven't outworn my welcome then. That's a long DYK discussion, and it's time it sees some closure. Obviously that organization is notable and meaningful, so putting them on the front page for eight hours is only proper. Now, bite the sour apple for a little while... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Market Mall (Saskatoon)
I have reverted your deletion of valid and directly verifiable (with two eyes, or a telephone or visiting the mall's website) information. The tag is intended to call attention to potentially incorrect information, in particular potential WP:BLP violations. Thanks. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Acquavella Galleries
The next time there is a dispute between us, you might have the common decency to notify me when you open a discussion about it which is not on the article talk page. BMK (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You should have received a notification, based on the inlining of your name in the very first sentence here. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As it says quite clearly on my talk page, I have notifications turned off. If you didn't want to talk about it on the article talk page, you should have put a notification there that you started a discussion elsewhere. Pinging one editor is no excuse for not letting all editors know who are interested enough in the article to have it on their watchlists.  Your judgement in this was quite poor. BMK (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you presume I read your talk page? And why are you assuming bad faith, above? And I seem to recall you may have asked me not to post on your talk page (and I'm fairly certain I asked you not to post here). And in any event, if you choose not to receive notifications -- that's your choice. Don't berate other editors for your own choice. If you want to receive notifications, they accept them, and if you don't, then don't ... Your call. No need for you to post here again, as I do believe I've requested you not do so in the past. Have a great day. Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nathaniel Albert Eaton
He's new, he admits a COI, he actually sounds like a pretty reasonable guy, he just doesn't know our policies. Policies aren't very intuitive to someone trying to add info that they know to be true but don't have sources. Since you are editing the same articles, could you help him along for a few days rather than template? You aren't incorrect in your assessments of what should be sourced and such, you and I agree, but I think if you help him along a bit, it would be tremendously helpful. He is a writer for a magazine, so he obviously has some skill and would be very helpful here, he just doesn't know how the place works. If you could, I would consider it a personal favor. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  12:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood and agreed as to most. He does for some reason seem to be re-adding material he should not be re-adding, even after it is explained to him (by both of us) what the rules are.  Hopefully he will take a moment to read them. I believe between us we have left him 8 messages, and many of them point to the relevant rules.  Best. Epeefleche (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He writes for a living, he might think "I know what the hell I'm doing and I know this is true", which gets in the way of communications sometimes. Our policies are there for a damn good reason, but it isn't obvious to newcomers who have no idea how much vandalism and BS edits you and I have to deal with.  But he does have some skill, so worth the time to help him get up to speed. We can always use someone who knows how to write properly......once they understand the policies.  Thanks, btw, the extra time is much better than a template.  Ping me if you need.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  18:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that our rules aren't intuitive. And that a typical person -- without having read our rules -- would not think that they can't write "what they know." Professional writers, generally, are familiar with the notion of sources.  He wrote (many years ago(?)) for High Times; it's not clear to me that he is now a writer.  Generally, though, I find professional writers are also capable readers. And the 8 messages we've left him have material that, were he to read the material, would outline the way forward for him.  I agree that were he to finally read it, he could be a helpful editor.  And I'm happy to see ... even if it takes more communications, with much the same content ... if some more pointing to and explaining our rules can help.  There is also, as you point out, the COI issue, which I hope he takes to heart.  Best. Epeefleche (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche - I am currently a professional freelance editor-writer. I get work, okay? I do not have as much time as I would like to learn all of the coding rules that Wikipedia editors should know, but I am trying my best. All of the info that I've added to Wiki pages has been well-sourced since my first faux pas over the High Times entry. If you find something that requires attention, then please let me know ASAP. I appreciate your advice. - Sincerely, Nathaniel Albert Eaton (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the thanks although seeing→

nearly gave me a heart attack ,

Why there's so many articles on primary schools is beyond me but there we go lol,

Happy Editing :) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an area that has needed further cleanup. We have a consensus approach, but when not enforced these just creep in. Good work on your part. Epeefleche (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most were created in 2006 when things like notability meant nothing here, Haha thanks, Someone had too I suppose , Now I'm just waiting for someone to revert (No doubt someone will!), Anyway Thanks and Happy editing :) – Davey 2010 Talk 04:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are always surprises in corners of the project that get little sunshine. I just learned that in one corner, editors are not deeming articles as worthy of mention in certain other articles based on how many non-English wp articles are written. Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Italians in Ethiopia; Trinacrialucente
Hello, regarding the "Italians in Ethiopia" edits I made, I left 3 reliable citations...all to the websites in question. You would have to be more specific in asking me not to leave edits without citations, as I left them for all my edits. Which ones in particular do you disagree with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Responded to on you talk page. And please, don't as you did on that page call another editor a bigots and racist. Epeefleche (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente (talk hello, looks like you need an English lesson: "a bigots" is bad English since "a" is singular and "bigots" is plural, so you probably meant to say "a bigot", right? On the page Italians_of_Ethiopia I found more bad grammar, namely "The avenge indeed came when..." In standard English "avenge" is a verb, not a noun. I believe you meant to say "revenge", which is the noun form.  Either way, the whole section sounds biased as there is no source cited that Italy embarked on a campaign of revenge (note: not "avenge") against Ethiopia since they had been trading partners up to the break of war.  If you cannot cite a source for your claim that Italy embarked on a campaign or policy of revenge (remember: not "avenge") against Ethiopia, I'll delete that section since it definitely sounds like yet another case of not being neutral...I suggest you read these guidelines on neutrality NPOV_dispute
 * Awesome. You found a typo.  The substantive point is the same -- if you continue to refer to other editors as bigots and racists, and otherwise engage in personal attacks on other editors, you are -- as in indicated in your final warning -- subject to being blocked. Epeefleche (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm...can't see where I called you a bigot or racist here, can you? No, I simply pointed out a couple of bad grammar skills on a page you edited and cited wikipedia's stance on neutrality. I didn't say YOU wrote that portion that sounds like it's not neutral; I simply am giving you a chance to cite a source or I'll delete it with no source, it goes against neutrality. I hope that's clear enough for you to understand. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.140.35 (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I flagged the concern about your personally attacking a Wikipedia editor, calling them a racist and a bigot. I have no idea why you introduced into that conversation discussion about edits made by another editor, not me, and asserted that you "believe [I] meant to say "revenge" ... when I didn't make the edit in the first place.  In any event, please don't make further personal attacks on editors, and understand you are now operating under final warning, and please only edit from one account.  Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I was actually logged out and logged back in and signed the comment, because I wanted to make sure you knew it was me making the comments and not someone else, so you will see it is signed by me now. Yes, the term "racist" and "bigot" is very subjective which I retracted (I prefer to let the edits you made speak for themselves). And once again, if you aren't responsible for the bad grammar and lack of citations, then case closed. I'll delete it immediately : ) See how easy that is when you work together to resolve differences?  Your "talk" page is full of people who aren't happy with your editing and take issue with opinions that have no citation.  So, as I said from the very beginning I am very happy to get an arbiter involved if that's what you can accomplish.  Have a wonderful day.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You incorrectly asserted that I wrote something. You asserted "I believe you meant to say "revenge", which is the noun form." But in fact I didn't make that edit. And it has zero to do with the conversation preceding it, about your personal attacks. That was an incorrect accusation, and if it had been (as you mischaracterized it) a comment about some other editor, it did not belong here. Please, as you've hopefully agreed to stop making personal attacks, also stop making accusatory false accusations that editors wrote things ... that they did not write at all. Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you have some irrational aversion to linking Wikipedia sources, I made sure to link them WITH external sources (news articles) to be exact. PLEASE do us both a favor and get a Wikipedia mediator involved. I really would like to show them how many issues you are causing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 04:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, I added a nice big picture of a Stele/Obelisk and linked MY page to THAT page, as well as provided an external link to the topic since you have such an adversion to solely using Wikipedia pages/sources on any given topic...which I personal find irrational. Have a great morning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 05:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, next time you decide to "undo" hours worth of scholarship and sourcing, simply because you want MORE sources, I would suggest you simply add the appropriate tags or something of that nature, rather than undoing someone's work. Hard work might mean nothing to you, but some of us are actually taking this seriously. If you let me know who to report you for being irrational in that regard, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks and have a great morning. Trinacrialucente


 * The article is tagged. Though unsourced material does not require a tag, in order to be challenged and removed. Please see wp:v. See, as well, the comments by another editor to you, in response to your request for comments, here. And the input of a number of other editors to you here. Epeefleche (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Galway Intermediate Hurling Championship
You state that the above championship is a

Non-notable, second-tier, amateur hurling competition of clubs in a county in Ireland.

Well I totally disagree.

The Galway Intermediate Hurling Championship is has 16 clubs competing each with a membership of from 350 to 900. The winners of this championship always win the Connacht Intermediate Hurling Championship with has competitors from Mayo, Roscommon and Galway. The winners of the Connacht Intermediate Hurling Championship compete in the All-Ireland Intermediate Hurling Championship.

The Galway Intermediate Hurling Championship attracts large crowds with the County Final ofter attracting a crowd 5-6k people.

Players from the Galway Intermediate Hurling Championship are eligible to play for Galway Senior Hurling team. Currently players Padraig Mannion, Cathal Mannion, Niall Burke, Gearoid McInerney, Colm Callanan and John Hanbury all play in the Championship.

Each of the clubs in the championship represents a parish with a large interest in GAA. Indeed in most of these areas hurling is the 'Only' sport played and makes up a major part of the social fabric of day to day living.

All over Ireland there are GAA aficionado who are interested in different clubs progress and history, titles won and famous players. As a GAA enthusiast and a person who collects GAA history I know a large plethora of people who are interested in such information. It is not always easily possible for people in other counties to find this information and this page would have allowed them easy access to it.

I see from your profile that you are involved in lacrosse. Well I congratulate you on that. As another field sport that uses a ball and a implentent to propel it I keep a close eye on lacrosse and have in the past investigated thoroughly its origins, history, development as well as its current standing, coaching and development. I would however ask you to contrast the fact that the Galway Intermediate Hurling Championship would have as big an attendance at its concluding stages as the lacrosse world cup finals! I would also ask you to contrast that the attendance and interest in Intermediate Hurling would be as big if not greater than Shinty in the whole of Scotland. This interest would not include the interest that GAA people all over Ireland and outside Ireland have in Hurling.

While this was a while ago I do not expect that this page is still available for retrieval but I would ask that you take into consideration the facts I have outlined before write off pages such as the Galway Intermediate Hurling Championship in future.

Regards Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgegan (talk • contribs) 11:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which of Wikipedia's notability criteria do you believe it meets?Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Market Mall Saskatoon
Please do not edit articles about places you clearly do not know about. By deleting information that is patently obvious you make the whole project look stupid. Market Mall had a 4th expansion in the 1990s, just learn to use Google Street View. WP:BURDEN is only to be cited in controversial cases where libel is involved or someone disputes the accuracy of the information. In which case the burden is on you to prove that no expansion to Market Mall occurred. Good luck with that. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All editors are welcome to edit articles about subjects they know nothing about. It is wrong of you to suggest otherwise. Nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines supports your assertion. And wp:burden is not, as you assert incorrectly, for "controversial cases where libel is involved or someone disputes the accuracy of the information," but in any event if unsupported text has been deleted per wp:v then someone has indeed disputed that accuracy of the information. The burden under wp:burden is on the person seeking to add the unreferenced information, not on anyone else. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Query
First on the discussion I closed. It was open for over 30 days! There was support and no opposition. Given that the task in closing is to determine if there is consensus, that was clear in this case. CfD discussions may have limited participation, but that is not a reason to not accept a finding that reflects the results of the discussion. As to participation. If the category is listed in your projects content, then there is a bot that updates a list of all discussions. Anyone is free to watch that file to see what nominations are active across the range of these discussions from articles to prods to templates to categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First, let me say I think you do great work. I agree that is a long time. The "support," of course, lacked any rationale or any discussion whatsoever. It was simply a thumb's-up. We as a rule I believe do not give weight to such !votes. And there was not any other "discussion" of any sort ... I don't think that if there were a nom, with zero discussion and zero thumb's-ups, we would close the discussion in that way. I sign up for discussions re AfDs and the like in the wikiproject areas that this cat falls within, but did not see it -- was it in fact listed there? As to watching each "file" one may be interested in -- that would add many thousands of pages to watch ... which is why we rely on the AfD bot for areas of interest, as it collects all such major moves, and is far more efficient. There were clear mis-statements (I gather, understandings) that were the basis for the nom, as is now clear from what I pointed you to. And, as I indicated, two interested editors were concerned with the mis-statements and follow-on conclusion, and would have liked to have participated. The other cat discussion was re-opened because of the same problems. And the nom has now indicated a softening in his views/assertions in that discussion.


 * Finally -- can you move this discussion all to your talkpage where it started? It will be much easier to follow if not bifurcated. Many thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Another potential issue at Parents and Abducted Children Together
Hi, I worked with you a bit at Parents and Abducted Children Together a few weeks ago. An editor whose contribution history is limited to editing exclusively Catherine Meyer-related articles has just made some edits. There seems to be a history of this sort of thing at articles dealing with Meyer and her work. I'm not aware of all the details or the history around these articles, but I wonder if you'd be willing to take a quick look in the interest of having a fresh set of eyes. Thanks, wia (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You are correct.  It does appear to me to be a single-interest editor, with a COI.  Introducing at least one falsehood ... and not for the first time. And doing so, in sneaky fashion, with a ref ... but one that does not support the assertion. I've left word on the editor's page. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a little baffled by the reversion to your previous text which has a number of errors and omissions. The PACT entry was in serious need of updating. Every fact in the text I posted is supported by a citation. My one mistake was to say "co-founded" instead of "launched" in reference to ICMEC. Hardly a huge difference and certainly not a sneaky falsehood. Lutetia99 (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with wia here, and with his comments on the article talk page. Also -- there is a huge difference between the person being involved with a party relative to the launch of the organization, and being a founder of the organization. That mis-statement has been made more than once, in more than one article, and restored after corrected. On top of that, by an apparently COI editor. Who seems to be engaging in puffery re the person in question. That is troubling. Epeefleche (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Good humor
Hello. Just wanted to make sure you knew that this edit was meant totally in good fun. Might not have been an appropriate time/place for humor.... --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought your comment was both funny and apt -- I hadn't brought the thought to the conclusion that your comment prompted me to. It was a perfectly appropriate time and place for humor, IMHO. And for pointing out the obvious.  Thanks for that. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh good. :-) Glad you appreciated it!!! --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So A follow up... What is the process for closing an article for deletion? IMHO it seems like the discussion has come to a consensus to delete the page, but I'm still relatively new to the process. Could you possibly help me understand how to move forward? Thanks a bunch! --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, AfDs generally run for a minimum of seven days. If there is not a clear and many-editor consensus, discussion is often extended one or two weeks after that. You can read up on the closure of AfDs at WP:CLOSEAFD. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks a bunch. There is so much documentation that sometimes I don't know where to look. :-p --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)