User talk:Fat&Happy/Archive 11

YOU
would you mind not interfering with my fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.255.14.201 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Arcandam (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. On a unrelated note: awesome archive-cat!

Category:American Stockbrokers
Saw your recent edit, regarding this category, and decided to ask you for your thoughts.

Should this category be expanded, or simply killed?

This category could be expanded. Populating this category with just a handfull of names, however, does not provide sufficient scope. If one prefers this sub-category over Category:stock brokers, then it would be best to undertake populating it through a search under Stockbroker then "Toolbox" then "What links here". Several hundred stockbrokers are listed, many of whom are Americans.

However... how does one define an "American" stockbroker? Does that mean American by nationality, or "American stockbroker" by virtue of having worked (exclusively/primarilty) in the American capital markets? That question might not be very significant in the case of, say, musical composers. A "Hungarian Composer" is still Hungarian, wherever he works. But what about "Hungarian stockbroker" if the Hungarian citizen worked his entire life (and made his noteworthy contributions, with noteworthy contacts and personal/professional associations) on the NYSE? Does directing someone to "Category:Hungarian Stockbrokers" provide meaningful information, if the individual never worked on the Budapest Stock Exchange? Would you need, yet another, sub-category for "Hungarian-American" stockbrokers? For that reason, I think it best to reconsider the value of this sub-category. Having one general search tool Category:stock brokers for all stockbrokers would seem to provide greater clarity and value. Gulbenk (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My initial inclination, without having done any real legwork looking into this, is that the (sub-)category is unnecessary, given it has only five members and the parent has only sixty-nine. But it should be done by discussion at WP:CFD, probably for all three subs, rather than by unilateral depopulation. Other editors there may well believe it's worth the effort to populate the categories more fully. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to read
WP:NLT this could be construed as one. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Harvard University (Notable people)". Thank you. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Second BUS
I happen to agree with you about the need to identify who benefited from the "proliferation of bank notes". I may, however, change the syntax a bit.

Also, why is my username red-inked? I have a user talk page, so I'm not quite sure what the issue is. So far, I've let it go because the red color makes it easier to locate in a lineup. But can you explain this? 36hourblock (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The redlink is to an actual user page (User:36hourblock), not to the talk page (User talk:36hourblock), which bluelinks. If you get tired of the red, click it anywhere it appears and you will be taken to a page where you can enter content to establish a user page ("Hello world" would do...). Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Vote?
Hey there, I've noticed that you have been involved in Italian American article. Would you mind participating in voting on Italian American notables?--Yerevanci (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for your participation
As a frequent or occasional editor of U.S. election-related articles, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.--JayJasper (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

John Roberts edits
Without any discussion, you reverted my changes with the subjective explanation of "the original was better" (without offering any evidence as to why).

The original used weak, passive, and wordy constructions. That is why I changed it. It was reverted by a defective bot that misidentified my changes as "vandalism." Once I saw that was done, I reverted to my changes.

I changed "having been nominated by" to "was nominated by." "Having been" is a weak and archaic verb structure. It's also verbose -- more words to say the same thing and using a pointless gerund to boot.

I changed the wordier "after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist" to "after Chief Justice William Rehnquist died." Again, a weaker and verbose construction changed to a stronger construction with fewer words.

I changed the wordier and weaker "after being admitted to the bar" to "after admission to the bar" -- fewer words, tighter construction, elimination of another pointless gerund.

I have thirty years of professional experience as an editor, including time at Condé Nast. So I'm not exactly inexperienced at editing. I am mystified, however, as to how passive, verbose, and archaic language is somehow "better." And your qualifications to make that proclamatory fiat are? And why is the original material allegedly "better"? Wikipedia is purportedly an exercise in collaboration -- how is summarily stamping something as "better" without any discussion nor rationale an example of effective and beneficent collaboration? 108.36.80.228 (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello F&H, you might want to see a similar message on my talk page from the same user, thanks Fraggle81 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich
From your contribution rank, please consider commenting at Proposed edits to "Personal life" if you haven't already done so. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I pretty much considered the topic closed back at the end of March when the original requester bowed to consensus and dropped out. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Victoria Beckham
Not unsupported original research. If she were born in 1974 (which she is), she would definitely be six years old in 1980. Many articles list both the subject's year and age. Mila Kunis, Natalie Portman, Sarah Palin just for a few. Spelling Style (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * She was born in April, not on January 1; "in 1980" she could have been either five or six years old and the cited source states she was seven, which is why the age was deleted in the first place. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that small tidbit aside, she was turning six that year. I'm wondering if the sentence can be rewritten without the source? Spelling Style (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Or we could keep the source and capture the relevant portion by saying "As a young child in 1980..." Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

John J. Pershing
Unfortunately, changing staes without explanation is a common form of vandalism, so you're gong to need to provide a citation for your change in 1915 to 1916 in this article. As always, when I fact is disputed, it is incumbent on the person who wished to include the fact to provide a citation from a reliable source when challenged. I'd appreciate it if you'd so so. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy
Adding quotations marks to clearly illustrate that this is a verbatium quotation is not disruptive editing. Stop being so pedantic ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corbynz (talk • contribs) 08:36, 3 August 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Refer to and comply with the Manual of Style. (And sign your posts on talk pages.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

John Birch
Before you repeatedly and automatically revert my edits to the John Birch article, please take the time to educate yourself and look up the definition of "murder" in a reputable English dictionary, such as the Oxford English Dictionary or the Merriam-Webster dictionary. My selection of the word is deliberate and precise, not pushing a "point of view". Furthermore, see my comment on the subject on the John Birch Talk Page. &mdash; QuicksilverT @ 00:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I read your comments when they were first posted two months ago, thank you very much for the advice. Comments by Senator Knowland are hardly definitive as to the circumstances of a U.S. military officer captured by opposing forces during a period of continuing open hostilities. The circumstances as described in the article do not support the characterization of his death as murder. If a good source is available identifying individuals who call the death "murder", they can be used to mention that viewpoint in the text. The infobox is for facts or at best well cited, well supported widespread conclusions, not individual beliefs or editors' interpretations. As the talk page comment prior to yous pointed out, the use of "executed" is inappropriate. So is the use of "murdered". We know Birch was "killed"; anything beyond that is a subject of conjecture and debate. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're still wrong. We "kill" houseflies and vermin.  People are "killed" when they die in a traffic accicent. When a man's life is deliberately taken by another without provocation, it is called "murder".  This is not a "subject of conjecture and debate". &mdash; QuicksilverT @ 14:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And apparently people are also "killed" when a team of U.S. Navy Seals burst into their home and shoot them.
 * You might want to go back and take a look at that Merriam-Webster definition again; perhaps actually read it. "Murder" has a distinct legal component to its definition. Can you provide a cite showing there was a binding court determination that this death of an active military officer at the hands of opposing forces was, in fact, murder? If not, use of the term clearly is a matter of debate. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Rubio
Re: this edit, I was about to do the same thing (well, with two of the sources). I guess we'll see if the editor keeps it up. -Rrius (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's at talk now. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't edit war, so I wouldn't expect another change to that material from me until we see a clear consensus to that effect. By the way, thank you for the additional sourcing, however, I don't buy them as a substantive argument. I explain in detail at the Rubio Talk page. Cheers. -- Avanu (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

SCV boldings
It was my understanding that when introducing a new organization, such as a successor or auxillery, that it was customary to bold them, such as Order of the Confederate Rose and Save the Sons of Confederate Veterans. What is the proper use?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cross-check me at WP:Boldface in case I misread it, but IIRC the bolding (for the purpose you mention) should only be used in the lead. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Kissinger
There was no interpretation intended, just a direct quote and the source document as a pdf. Is it the content, or the POV website referenced that you object to? Would it be OK to spell out the issue (depopulation policy for LDC's) without the 'biased website' reference?BCameron54 03:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "depopulation" quote does not appear in the document itself. It is something the advocacy site ascribes to Kissinger, while not actually saying it was in the document or providing any source or context. The emphasis in the document seems to be on reducing population growth (to the benefit of both the U.S. and the developing nations themselves), not "depopulation" as the term is commonly construed. (Otherwise, it would hardly have said: "Highest priority should be given to reduction in mortality and morbidity and increase of life expectancy and programs for this purpose should reach rural areas and underprivileged groups.") If you feel the Kissinger article needs to contain more information on the document, even though it has its own blue-linked article, surely such a controversial statement that is almost 40 years old must have some actual balanced scholarly commentary out there that can be used as sources? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"Blatantly obvious"
Hi Fat&Happy, when making edits such as this one (and even also this followup) it is important that you give a meaningful edit summary so that other editors know what's going on. What might be "blatantly obvious" for you is likely to be less obvious to someone else. Thanks, and happy editing! Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, your revert came at exactly the wrong time and my follow-up es was unnecessarily bitey. Unfortunately, HotCat complicates adding edit summaries for fairly straightforward maintenance changes, which is why I often don't use it unless I'm feeling particularly lazy. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. Thanks,  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Persian Language
Hi

Please leave the Persian Language page alone, and please don't just make arbitrary editing without proper explanation. We are Iranian linguistic experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.144.237 (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick question
Hello F&H, Do you know why the bar with Watchlist is missing? Been gone for at least two days on both my home nd work computers. You can just respond, if you would, on my talk p. Meanwhile hope the wind is at your back. Your old pal,--174.106.64.97 (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Nevermind I see it's because I wasn't logged in. Yours,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, my favorite kind of question. The inquirer answers herself; no fuss, no muss, no effort... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Caption punctuation
Hi Fat&Happy! I'm confused about the placement of the period here: why would that caption require punctuation while two longer captions nearby (also ending in dates) don't? Not that I mind either way, but I'm happy to receive tips on formatting! :) Best. Acalamari 07:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Good question.
 * WP:Caption, along with WP:LQ, is a somewhat PIA guideline that frequently requires close judgment calls as to whether or not a specific phrase constitutes a complete sentence. The specific caption changed seems – to me – to be a sentence, having a properly related subject and verb. (The image immediately before this one, OTOH, which has a caption reading "Obama speaking at Joint session of Congress with Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on February 24, 2009", does not meet that requirement; a simple change of "speaking" to either "speaks" or "spoke" would make it a sentence, but would probably also require rephrasing of the part about Biden and Pelosi to remain accurate.) But looking back through other images in the article in response to your question, I think that "Barack Obama takes the oath...", "President George W. Bush meets...", and "Obama stands on stage..." are all complete sentences requiring a full stop. Meaning the single change I made was primarily an adverse consequence of the "squeaking wheel" syndrome. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the explanation. :) Just one more thing, what do you mean by the "squeaking wheel syndrome"? I'm not familiar with that term. Thank you. Acalamari 09:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A reference to the old adage "It's the squeaking wheel that gets the oil", generally used to say that the things that are complained about most obviously are the ones most likely to be fixed; in this case a reference to the fact that several captions in the article are questionable, but only the one you changed drew attention by showing up on my watchlist. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, I understand now. Thanks again! Acalamari 08:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi
How ya'll doin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.126.219 (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ya'll better save the pacing mare for Sunday now, ya hear, we got us an editin' war on our hands, know whadamean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.126.219 (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey
FYI, I've commented about your elimination of the list of nominees who have released tax returns. Cheers.64.134.98.120 (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My point about FOX doesn't violate WP:POINT.
No policies or guidelines were disregarded, misapplied or at all involved. But thank you for recognizing and affirming the point I was making. If using the word "allegation" like this is improper in describing Fox's stance, it must be equally improper in describing the other side's stance. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Creativemind15 - disruptive editing in 2008 and 2012 U.S. Presidential Election articles
I just discovered that Creativemind15 sneaked in the VP candidates into the presidential candidates sections of the 2008 and 2012 election articles. In the 2008 article, he did it within the past 24 hours, adding Biden and Palin, and their pics. And he added the words subtitles "Nominees" and "Withdrew" in both articles, even though those sections are just to list the presidential candidates. For example, see the Republican candidates sections in the 2012 article. I just reverted what Creativemind did in the 2008 article and put in the edit comments that that section is for presidential candidates only; and that the VP nominees are only in the infobox. In the 2012 article, he started sneaking in the content at: 22:02, 14 August 2012‎ and apparently no one noticed. I can't revert it because the article is protected. He added Biden and Ryan, and their pics into the candidates section. I also notice he sneaks in changes of pics with comments like "I like this one better" or "This one is better", etc. Anyway, I fixed 2008, but I can't fix 2012 because it's protected. Here's the starting point in each article where he started added the VPs and their pics into the presidential candidates sections in the two articles: (2008) and  (2012). Here's what the candidates photo gallery sections looked like in the 2012 article before Creativemind started changing them. Thanks. --76.189.126.159 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I posted this edit request because I'm not sure if you can fix it or if it requires and edit request. :) --76.189.126.159 (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (Typed but not posted before above comment): I see you posted a comment on the article's talk page. A couple of editors seem to have been monitoring Creativemind's antics, and one will probably now correct this one. I've been trying – with limited success – to avoid the 2012 election articles since they turned into major partisan battlegrounds of wikilawyering, so at this point, especially with the conventions having intervened, I'm not sure what would be considered the correct format to restore. I'll pass for a couple of days, and if nobody else steps in by then, I may give it a try. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi F&H. :) The format has been clearly established for many years, as proven by all the articles for the previous elections. The galleries are only supposed to list the candidates who ran for president. As my edit request suggest, see the articles for 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, and 1992, etc., for verification of the format. I believe what happened was that no one noticed Creativemind did this; it simply got overlooked. So I'm sure that other editors will appreicate it being reverted back to the way it's been for decades of presidential election articles. Thanks for your reply! --76.189.126.159 (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: Jack Bornholm just fixed it. :) Jack is in the U.S. presidential elections WikiProject. I still can't believe that no editors noticed that Creativemind did that, and that's it's remained there since August 14. Haha. --76.189.126.159 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Another update. ;) Creativemind just posted this explanation. So it looks like the matter is resolved. Yay. --76.189.126.159 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Cayman Healthcare law
I've redone the link to take you right to the supporting item. 11 paragraphs down it reads "According to the Minister of Health Service, Hon Anthony Eden, the Cayman Islands is the first country in the world to mandate health insurance for all residents." Ace-o-aces (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. With the original raw URL to the home page, and the "medium on light-medium" color scheme of the site, the original was a bit difficult to verify. This is much better. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dude
Comment on your revision: This content "In fact, Japanese troops garrisoning throughout the country viewed Thailand as a "colony" rather than an "ally."[5][6]" couldn't be found in the given references. Please check the references carefully, in fact, " Ultimately, the primary aim was to ensure the resolution of Thailand's sovereignty and establish an independent nation that would be regarded as an equal by the Allies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdaikon (talk • contribs) 05:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not immediately able to check one of the two sources, so had to make a good-faith assumption that the original editor had represented it accurately. I was, on the other hand, able to read the quote you substituted about the ultimate primary aim. This comment clearly referred to the anti-Japanese underground movement, not to the Japanese occupation itself as your edit implied. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment: since, early posted as good-faith assumption you've mentioned, I found the same above-content posted in Spanish (Español page) as well which was exactly same content but in English. Now, it already has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdaikon (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal Organizations that oppose LGBT rights parent categories from several pages
You removed the parent category Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights (presumably) because of the redundant child category Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage‎

While you were correct to remove the redundancy, it was the child category that should have removed. The parent category holds the children as well as organizations which oppose more than one LGBT right (e.g. adoption rights, hospital visitation, survivor rights, citizenship, etc.). I just put the child category under the parent, and was about to remove the child category from the articles. Please bear with me as this takes a little time and coordination. Thank you. – MrX 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles need to be included in the most specific applicable category, not the broadest. In this case, that would be the marriage one. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that, as I had hoped would be evident by what I wrote above. I believe that is permissible to have individual pages in a parent category, if they cannot be categorized into a single child category of that parent. In other words, the parent category in this case is not merely a container category. If you are aware of a policy or guideline that does not permit this, please direct me to it. Thank you. – MrX 20:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But most of these articles can be – and have already been – categorized into the child category about same-sex marriage. If there are, or should be, other categories that could apply, such as Category:Groups advocating imprisonment of LGBT people or Category:Groups advocating censorship of LGBT position discussions, that's another issue. See WP:Categorization. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is another issue. Forget how the article were categorized; the category 'structure'' has changed.
 * It's really a simple question of how to properly categorize pages that do not fit into a single subcategory, either
 * List them in the parent category
 * List them in all of the child categories that apply
 * I did not see this addressed at WP:Categorization. My position is that number 1 is correct, based on my observation.


 * I intend to put each of these page that you reverted to the sub category back to only the parent category because these groups each opposed multiple rights of LGBT people, not just same-sex marriage. Please let me know if you plan to revert them because of a different interpretation of the guidelines. Thanks – MrX 20:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. From the guideline:
 * "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." (emphasis added). Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong about the categorization, as MrX explained nicely. But you're even more wrong to edit-war over it. You're at 3RR on some articles. I suggest that you stop. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can count, thank you. And, apparently unlike you, I don't invent policies and guidelines as I go along but am able to comprehend the existing ones that are written in clear English. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You can count, but you apparently can't explain yourself on talk pages. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never encountered you until today, but wanted to caution you that some of the pages you have edited today have a few problematic editors watching them. Please tread carefully as most of these pages are being watched by admins. But if you can't be goaded into problematic editing, then you have nothing to fear. Regards. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * F&H, I can see your point in theory that what is needed is a plethora of specific subcats rather than one broad cat, but it doesn't seem to me that it would work practically. All of these subcats would be populated with pretty much exactly the same articles, because most of these organizations have pretty much exactly the same views. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that a CfD has been opened, I responded there. Not surprisingly, we are in at least partial disagreement; I can support one all-encompassing category for such organizations, but prefer that it be renamed. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Obama
I'm posting this here because the section on Obama's page was closed. You accused me of being a troll. This offended me, not in a personal manner, but because what you did contravenes the spirit of Wikipedia - I'm a new user with a controversial opinion and you took the easy way out and accused me of bullshitting. I have a couple of questions.

What makes you think this? You mentioned obama making a joke about his name being O'Bama. That is not comparable with his wife saying unequivocally that his "home country", whatever that means, is Kenya. Second, since you in essence accused me of essentially breaking the rules, do you plan on actually reporting me to an administrator and following up on your assertions? YankeeJeff (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Dates
I really do plan to go through these articles and standardize the dates to mmmm dd, yyyy. I tried to do it with the MOSNUMscript, but it simply didn't work. Thanks for jumping in and helping. – MrX 02:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, in MassResistance the preponderance of the dates in cites seemed to be in ISO yyyy-mm-dd format, so even though I much prefer either mmmm d, yyyy, or d mmmm yyyy – depending on article subject or history – I changed the few that were in either of those formats to ISO for consistency; I would have no problem if you as one of the initial or primary editors on that article changed them to mmmm d, yyyy. (User:Ohconfucius's script looks like it usually does a pretty good job when (s)he runs it, but I'm too lazy to figure out how to install and use it; for larger articles, I just have a couple of canned macros and repetitive replace commands in MS-Word that I use.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Noticeboard
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. YankeeJeff (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Dan Senor
You wrote about the quote from Maureen Dowd in this article: "no indication one woman's colorful and partisan opinion is of biographical noteworthiness." It's colorful, but not partisan. Are you suggesting that biographical articles in Wikipedia can't offer criticism of their subjects? Blandness is a virtue in encyclopedias? Chisme (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm suggesting that an individual criticism by a non-expert political columnist and not followed up as being noteworthy by several secondary sources should not be here. Unless, of course, you're willing to try inserting Sean Hannity's or Rush Limbaugh's latest talking points into the Barack Obama article; I'm sure that would be met with great success. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what a "non-expert political columnist" is. Are there "expert political columnists"? Dowd writes for the NY Times, a very well-respected newspaper. She doesn't deal in "talking points." Hannitty and Limbaugh are talk radio guys. They deliver thousands of opinions each day -- orally. Their opinions are not made by rumination and careful thought. They yak on the airwaves. They are not held to the same standard as an essayist or newspaper columnist. I respectfully ask that you consider reinserting this valid critique of Senor's failures in the Iraq war. Chisme (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that it's gone beyond "What did you mean?", "I meant this.", the actual discussion of whether specific content belongs in an article should probably take place on the article's talk page, not one of an individual editor. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Mila and Ashton
I was curious as to how long in time a romance needs to be and what do you consider a reputable source before it can be placed in Mila Kunis and/or Ashton Kutcher's pages? Your recent note on Mila's page in removing an editor's post on their dating says it is "unsourced trivial gossip." What source(s) are good enough, and does it have to be from an old-line network (CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX/CNN) or a less well-known entertainment source? Do either of them have to publicly confirm it before it can be placed into a Wiki page, and is that necessary at all? Can you give us some guidelines on this point, since it is strange that numerous sources have reported them out on dates, even living together, and with *many pics* and reporting on their public events together, such as a vacation in far-away Bali. Why can't Wiki have one of those sources considered reputable? I'm thinking of eonline.com and people.com, to name two: Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis Kiss, Pack on the PDA in NYC and Ashton Kutcher & Mila Kunis's PDA-Filled Weekend Thanks! --Katydidit (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

One more example from the establishment L.A. Times, so you can't say it's from an "unsourced trivial gossip magazine." And pictures of them out together on a date don't lie, such as if it was just an article only with no pics to back up the claim. You don't fly off to faraway Bali together if *not* on a date. Ashton Kutcher, Mila Kunis — drum roll — hold hands in Bali --Katydidit (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The most recent entry I removed was "unsourced trivial gossip", which looked like something one would expect to see scrawled on an elementary school playground, not included in an encyclopedia biography. Perhaps if someone put the same effort into developing a brief description of the relationship and its importance as you put into building a straw man on my talk page, and actually supplied sources supporting the content in the article, not on a talk page, the content might have a better chance of not being reverted. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresented WP-blacklisted source
I was wondering if you could explain this edit. 

Your edit summary was "rm misrepresented WP-blacklisted source"

You removed the source and then added a citation needed tag, and I'm mystified as to why.

Thanks – MrX 23:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no newspaper Springfield Examiner (or if coincidentally there is, it's totally unrelated to the site where the cited article appeared), and www.examiner.com is on the Wikipedia blacklist of online sources apparently deemed completely unacceptable for use here. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The source came from NewsBank's database of US newspaper articles.
 * The newspaper is listed as: Springfield Examiner, and the bottom of the article is listed
 * Section: Southwestern Illinois Christian Activism Examiner
 * Source: Examiner.com


 * If I understand WP:BLACKLIST, it is simply a list to prevent (spam) URLs from being added to WP. I see nothing to suggest that an article on such a web site would considered unreliable though. As it is, I believe this source simply picked up a press release from IFI.


 * Thanks – MrX 23:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, a few days ago you (I think) had a similar citation to Seattle Examiner in one of the anti-gay organization articles, and I was playing fill-in-the-missing-URLs again. I located the article, again at examiner.com, and tried to add it to the reference, but got blocked hard. I then went to the WP:RSN archives; the short version (my paraphrasing) is that www.examiner.com is not considered a reliable source for anything, no way, no how, and they're not inclined to consider requests for unblocking it (even though some articles may be credible, because the site has too little editorial oversight and too much variability). But yeah, even though I already wasn't too impressed by them as a reliable source, I was a bit shocked to find I couldn't add the link at all. (BTW, the original of the IFI article is http://www dot examiner dot com/article/illinois-family-institute-a-first-line-of-defense-the-illinois-culture-war if it accepts on a talk page. [ETA: And no, it doesn't, so I tried obfuscating the link just so you can see it.]) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thanks for the explanation. – MrX 23:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

GG
Youre brilliant, F&H. Seriously. You're suggestions for vocabulary are spot on. i wish I had thought of these words/phrasies. Can't respond in more detail to your chat but will as soon as I have a minute. And will digest your thinking. The talk p. has been quiet today since I wrote my rebuttle so we'll see what happens. Why don't you add your suggestions to the talk p.? Or I guess since you haven't done the research you can't really wordsmith. In any case, I'll move forward and act on your suggestions. you see, you do have a scholarly mind--you understand the profound difference in scholarship that one word can make. don't you find that fascinating? More soon,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have my talk p. on your watchlist? I have a message for you there. If not, I'll check back here from time to time.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You're a speed demon. Glad someone's on top of addressing problems like the removal of the pic from the commons. Weird. Don't personally care for the AK pic--not very expressive nor interesting to me--but not motivated to do anything about it. Got a message from Princetonian who had deleted all the stuff about GG's relationships a couple of weeks ago. Said he thought the relationships section was "better." I was rereading the Schanke bio of MdA and found reliable evidence that they were lovers. MdA states they were in a letter to the currator of the Rosenbach Museum & Library where she sold her papers. Eventually I'll get to that edit. Take good care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny, I guess I'm remembering wrong; I thought the AK pic was one you liked and I didn't originally. When the infobox one was removed, I first looked at the others on our (en:WP) page, and was starting to grab the Mata Hari one from the gallery a the bottom, but then I decided to look in Commons:Category:Greta Garbo to see if my all time fav, the AK hat pic was there to backfill the gallery. It's not, but this one sort of leapt off the page at me, almost literally. I think it's the eyes. But I also see it as a bit dark, and the pose has her looking toward the edge of the page a bit, which the guidelines discourage. So like I said in the edit summary, I'm open to alternatives. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, great. I have some time now. How do I go to the commons? Then, we can chat about possibilities again. Why would the pic from Susan Lennox be public domain for years and then suddenly be dropped?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was a bit curious about the sudden status change on the other pic too, but didn't have time to try to follow the history any. You can find the (cough, cough) detailed analysis and discussion that took place prior to the removal at this link: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Garbo Lenox Publicity.jpg.
 * As to getting to the commons category page, just follow the link I included in my 01:48, 29 September 2012 post above. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeeze. Slim pickins. Only one that might be better than the AK you picked (quite moribund expression), in my view, is the Ninotchka pic next to her grave. Other Ninotchka and Queen Christina and older GG have bad hair and are not representative of her renowned face. Others are either on the page already (and shouldn't be removed), she's too young, she's with a co-star, or it's just a bad pic. I think the only problem AK hat photo is that it shows only one eye. Plus too glamorous? The Ninotchka photo is a little more natural and earthy. But I don't really care that much. I'm too tired of everything except making sure facts are correct and things aren't changed for what I think is worse. Then I'll get involved. You choose.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe. Now you understand why I ended up picking the one I did when we needed a super-quick replacement. The Ninotchka one you mention is good; I'm not sure why I bypassed it originally, but the main issue I have is it's a bit too "horizontal" for the lead-off picture at the top of the columnar infobox. I think I'll let the AK one stay for now, but keep looking online for others as time allows. (And yes, even though the hat picture is my current favorite, I agree it isn't a good choice for the main pic.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On that note, I'm sure another editor whose fantasy of her requires that she be straight will come along again and delete the whole gay section!
 * Count on it. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I will indeed. Thanks for fixing the MdA typos! Sufferage. Incredible.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Good MdA adjustment. Every prolific WP contributor should have a good editor, like you, keeping up with his or her writing. Very important in all published work.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I missed that one earlier. Probably an effect of knowing the overall quality of your work and not checking changes diligently; for anyone else, I would have been all over that like white on rice the day it was first added. Some people would want to delete "only" from that sentence as being judgmental, but given the earlier indication that there were 181 letters in all, I consider it merely informational and needed. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I struggled with "only" for a while before deciding to put it in. In the end, I added it because it's true and relevant. For instance, MdA's recent and only biographer wrote things like, G sent only 5 letters etc to MdA in 1953. Yet he lacks sufficient evidence to draw this conclusion! (GG wrote an amazing 97 letters to her in the 50s) (I told him this when I met him this summer and he immediately realized his error. Whoops!) This is true in all the commentary I've read since the letters were made public in 2000. Mystifies me why so many of MdA's and GG's chroniclers neglect to mention this critical fact, which is stated in the nytimes. Hardly unreliable. Even GG's definitive biographers (whose books were written before 2000 demote the 181 letters etc over a 30 year period (which they knew) into a footnote! They don't even mention their relationship in the fifties. Extraordinary. So as a researcher, I think I've contributed something important to WP readers, where most people now get their information about this sort of thing. Also, MdA states that GG was a lover. I include that in the MdA p. but haven't yet in the GG p. Too bored and lazy.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct guess. You fix all my typos. Per recent edits to G p: I decided to put an end to my timidity (afraid of the deniers) and state the facts. Ironically (or paradoxically--still have trouble with the very complex word irony), this comes after an editor objected to my use of the terms "alleged," and "speculate."--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It looked like you meant to do a Cntl-C copy and used a Cntl-X cut instead; "it looked like" that because I've done it so many times...
 * Curious as to what the reasoning was behind dropping the "only". Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought I fixed all the missing pp's. ONe of my goals is to edit something on these damn pages that you don't have fix or correct. You must think I'm an idiot, which I am.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "...you meant to do a Cntl-C copy and used a Cntl-X cut instead...." It's true I do cntl-x but don't know what the problem is which is why I continue to do it. Can you briefly explain the problem of doing a Cntl-x? About "only." I do think it is tendentious on this page but not on the G p. Since MdA was without any doubt a lesbian I don't think it's necessary. I include her statement that they were lovers--unequivocal truth. On G p., still a shadow of a doubt so necessary, I think, to include it. I don't know. Maybe this is crazy reasoning. I don't add MdA's letter to the museum currator asserting they were lovers because I just don't to take even more space on her sexuality which, as I've said, should not be central to her legacy. But still important because, as i read today, speculation about her sexuality goes back to 1931! And the question of her sexuality has facinated Garbo watchers since then. Your thoughts?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I need to write more slowly to you and reread before sending. It's actually the other way around--possibly tendentious on the G page. But as I say, the facts need to be air tight for the doubters. There are no doubters with MdA.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Jesus. Don't pay any attention to me. I got everything backward. Added "only" back to GG, which I thought was MdA, for the reasons I cite above. I'm very tired and should have stopped editing earlier, or at least not talked to you! I think the adjustments I've made however are good ones. Don't for get to clarify the cntrl x/c for me. I'm vexed.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I might have made the same cntr x/c mistake again but don't know exactly what the result is. And now it's time to say goodbye to this damn p. for a while. I can't believe I started editing again but I revisited the books again to clarify stuff on MdA and found other stuff to add. That led to improvements because I'm a perfectionist, though you wouldn't know that from all the little mistakes I make that you fix.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any obvious cut/paste errors in your most recent edits.
 * Difference: If you highlight (select) some text and hit cntl-c, the text is copied into the clipboard so it can be pasted (cntl-v) elsewhere, and the original text remains unchanged; if you use cntl-x instead, in addition to copying to the clipboard, it also erases/deletes the copied text from its original location. Note these are the Windows rules; I can't remember if you're using a PC or a Mac, and Mac rules may differ. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My friend, of course I know the diff betw cntrl x and cntrl c. :) I just don't ustand the mistake I'm making that you've been correcting. Can you explain that? btw I use Windows. You?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. A surprising number of people don't. As I said, I was just guessing at the cause of the (one) malformed reference in your edit, based on a mistake I often make myself and on the fact that the missing author and year had been present previously and were inserted in a ref at the end of your addition, so it looked like you may have meant to copy the information and accidentally moved it instead. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Still confused by: "meant to copy the information and accidentally moved it instead." But I'll be careful to pay attention to what i'm doing if I move something again. Actually, I plan to let go of this p. again. But researching the de Acosta piece I found stuff to add to other sections and of course possibilities for prose improvements.--68.221.24.228 (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the nytimes cit which I knew you probably would. Unfortunately, I put the wrong one in. (He wrote another in which he writes about her sexuality and says "a same-sex sexual relationship was her obvious choice." That's the one I meant to put in and will have to redo the freakin thing. Will do my best to get it right this time. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I put the right one in.. just didn't read after the advertisment. Thanks again for fixing the cit. I spent about 30 mins trying to get it right but I'm just too inept about these things. I got one newspaper cit right once and tried to copy that. But life is never tht simple--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

PIKE
I disagree that the event is not notable. I believe the indefinite suspension of chapter at U of TN is significance. This isn't a routine thing which is why it became such a major coverage and I find that the incident meets WP:EVENT Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I obviously don't agree. And even though we disagree on what portion of the guideline would apply here, WP:EVENT is not particularly relevant since it applies to determining whether an event has sufficient notability to justify a separate article, not whether it has enough impact on a particular subject to be included in that article. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that you have both reached (or exceeded) the limits of WP:3RR on Pi Kappa Alpha. Please work toward a consensus before making further edits regarding this issue. Might I suggest a request for comments? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Pamela Geller
So let's see what happens when I find the source for my "unsourced characterizations".--Saidkassem (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's an interesting idea. Wonder why you didn't come up with it before making changes to the BLP. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Isaac
I'm not happy with the new editor's understanding of our policies. I removed some OR at Ishmael and raised his edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible,  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible and  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. I'll ask for a review of Isaac's GA status if the Christian views section isn't fixed. Ishmael I don't know enough about to say if it's an improvement or not. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Naomi Ashley / Walter Mondale
Hi, I reverted your undo to my edit in the Walter Mondale article. Your point about notability would be well-taken if I had created an article about the Naomi Ashley song, but I didn't. I'm just adding some bits to the "popular culture" section of the Mondale article. Mondale is notable, as is the fact that he has become a cultural touchstone of sorts, and the fact that musicians in the 21st centruy are writing songs about him supports the larger point of this section. The section currently is little more than a list and I hope to add some organization, as the question of why Mondale is a touchstone is interesting and there are probably credible articles on that topic. In deference to what I think was the point of the Undo I deleted the brackets around Ashley until such time as someone thinks she warrants an article or at least stub of her own.LakeAtNight (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your Mondale-centered reasoning. However, Wikipedia is not the place to promote the efforts of every would-be artist who has a YouTube video or personal website. Perhaps you could supply an unrelated secondary source to indicate that the Ashley's work is noteworthy, and the inclusion does not afford undue weight to the efforts of this particular individual? Trivia lists are notably (no pun intended) problematic, but generally there is some requirement of either reliable sourcing or notability for each list item. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales
Why did you revert my edit about Diana not being a member of the Royal Family after her divorce? She most certainly was not a member once the H.R.H. was removed. At the time of her death, Diana had no more Royal status than Sarah Ferguson or Mark Phillips now do. 2.219.203.7 (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you did not supply any reliable source to support your change, which was – as briefly but clearly noted in my edit summary – contradicted by the source already cited. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Kendall, Florida
Just an FYI, Kendall is not an incorporated community, therefore it is not a "city." Please read over its Wiki article and its sources to familiarize yourself with the community: Kendall.Comayagua99 (talk)
 * I read over the article several months ago. The Census Bureau, which is both cited as a reference and attributed in text, includes Kendall as a "principal city" of the MSA, so it needs to be included in the list of "principal cities" that is based on their definitions. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Link at David Amram
Fat&Happy -- Curious why you removed the new link at David Amram as "rv personal blog linkspam."

Regards, Tdreyer (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Tdreyer
 * Because it seemed like a fairly brief and accurate description of the addition. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

My question is a serious one. I've done substantial editing on Wikipedia and I would like to know how you make that determination. The Rag Blog is not a personal blog. It is published by the New Journalism Project, a Texas 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, and features the work of dozens of well-known alternative journalists. There are scores of links to Rag Blog articles and Rag Radio podcasts on Wikipedia.

Tdreyer (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Tdreyer
 * And I see it as a probable case of blatant COI promotion. You are, of course, free to seek alternative views on the article's talk page. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate your response and your input. My reading of Wikipedia COI is that it is not considered a "conflict of interest" if the post is legitimate and relevant, and compatible with the "aim of Wikipedia." Tdreyer (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Tdreyer

Bruce Ratner
Thanks for your careful edits on this. I put back "controversial" because it's also cited in the Times's piece by Bagli and Berger, in the fifth paragraph: "Mr. Ratner, one of the most prominent and polarizing figures in real-estate-mad New York." If you still object, please discuss on the article's Talk page. thanks208.125.29.157 (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion, not a fact; it's not a neutral POV to start off an article describing the subject as "controversial"; it's not particularly noteworthy – George Bush and Barack Obama could be accurately described as controversial American politicians, Joseph Smith, Muhammad and Jesus as controversial religious leaders, etc., etc., etc. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Duuuuude. Read the article from beginning to end. It's not an opinion piece.--208.125.29.157 (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)