User talk:Kissa3b

April 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Beckii Cruel has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Beckii Cruel was changed by Kissa3b (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.943502 on 2015-04-05T16:32:01+00:00.

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Margaret Palermo. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Palermo article
When you reverted my edit, you also reverted the grammatical edit that I made. Before the revert, it said, "[...] Palermo won first place [...]" but after the revert, it now says, "[...] Palermo won the 1. place [...]" which is a grammatically incorrect phrase.

In your revert summary, you said that the Thai year being significant had already been discussed on Wikipedia, but there is no mention of it on the Talk page, there is no archive, and the Talk page history seems to lack evidence of this. Can you elaborate?

Either way, the way it is stated in the article needs to be changed since the grammar is very poor. That portion of the statement says, in part, "[...] on the Loi Krathong Festival... Regarding Thai solar calendar it was in 2549." The whole thing should be rephrased to be understandable in English, and the hard ellipsis should be avoided on WP in regular prose when it is not indicating omission in a quotation.

I noted in my edit summary that Facebook links should not be used as a reference. Another editor made a similar statement in their edit summary. A reliable source needs to be found for this statement, or else the whole statement is in danger of being removed. Also refer to WP:BLP on this point. Under WP guidelines (again, see WP:BLP), this statement in its entirety should have been removed immediately (without any discussion) since it did not have a reliable source backing it up. Same goes for any other statement in a biographical article of a living person where there is no source, or the source is bad (bad sources, here, include Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or even Palermo's own statements that come from anywhere other than via a reliable third party source).

Also, one should not revert "good faith edits." Using revert is often interpreted as saying that the previous editor was maliciously vandalizing the article, or that they are doing something else that is maliciously bad. (It is not a good thing to do to a good faith editor.) Instead, other means of undoing an edit are preferred when the edit being undone was done in good faith. Please review the Wikipedia article on using reverts at WP:RV. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've done my best and corrected the grammar as asked for it! But third party is never as reliable as the person, I thought ... where is it stated please..? Because I think there are billions of third persons who never met the actual person and fantasize. The phtos of the contest speak for themselves, it's not just a statement made by Venus Palermo, but photos in the Wat Srinagarin, tiara, sash and goblet. A Wat probably doesn't want to put a contest in the foreground on their website. Kissa3b (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Another note. I noticed you changed instances of "Palermo" to "Venus" in the article. After the first mention of the person's full name, Wikipedia generally uses only their last name for the rest of the article unless there is more than one person by that name being discussed in a sentence. Since "Palermo" is her last name, this should be used throughout the article, unless you have a reason to use her given name ("Venus") instead that is acceptable to Wikipedia guidelines. If there isn't a legitimate reason to use her given name (ie., Venus), then these should be changed back to her last name (ie., Palermo) to conform to Wikipedia guidelines. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh thank you for letting me know. Where is it stated? If so, of course, I will not change this again, sorry. Kissa3b (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I forgot to add a link to the article for you in my last comment. It is discussed in the Wikipedia Manual of Style at MOS:LASTNAME. They also discuss a few of the exceptions to the last name guideline, but I am not sure that any of them apply in this situation. Though, you might be able to match one that might apply to this article. (?)
 * In reply to your other question, reliable sources are discussed in Identifying reliable sources (you will often see it abbreviated as RS or WP:RS). But also very relevant in this case is Biographies of living persons (usually abbreviated as BLP or WP:BLP) which has a section on sources, as well. Wikipedia is much more strict when it comes to articles of living people (because of respecting the person's privacy, as well as a worry of making false statements about people regardless of whether it's a good statement or a bad statement).
 * Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources for biographies of people are sometimes really frustrating. I have run into the same problem a couple times in other articles where I had a statement from the person but Wikipedia did not like it. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)