User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com/Archive 10

Duncan McNair
Hi - you made a few changes to the page on Duncan McNair, forgive me I'm quite new to this - did you have a problem with the neutrality of the page and if so can you please advise where you see the problem being. Thanks. Comment added by IanBrumpton (talk • contribs) 11:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Kubura comments and my own comments
I see now that your text got deleted, but that was likely just a knee-jerk reaction to your mistake. It would have been best if your mistake was corrected more carefully, but you can't really blame people for using the undo function.

As for the comments themselves, I think it's best if you move them to the user talk of that user, because responding to ancient comments with little or no relevance to the current article text (right?) is usually counter-productive. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a problem, the assumption of good faith on your part continues to stand :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, because that specific user is concerned, given the most recent fiasco, I'm going to exercise my solemn right to not waste any more of my precious volunteer time on matters pertaining to them that aren't urgent. If you have anything to tell me about myself, please feel free to tell me here. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. BTW I undid your last edit to that Talk page, it looks like you accidentally unarchived a lot of material that I had moved to archive in the meantime. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The software (mediawiki) might have allowed you to work on a revision that was no longer current, thereby implicitly rolling back a bunch of changes that had happened since. Did you click the undo link, or did you click the Revision link and then save an old version of the article despite the red warning? :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe you used a long-opened browser window/tab for editing? That would have meant that you saw the old revision from your browser cache, and would explain why you didn't see any warnings. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Peter O'Toole
I'm talking about that fact not being in the newspaper article being used as the reference. Haldraper (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nyree Dawn Porter
Obits in UK papers give NDP's date of birth as 22 Jan 1940 and her age at death as 61. Should we take this as right or just note the anomaly? Please respond in the NDP talk page. Silent Billy (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Roughly finished Death by Burning?
Hi there! I believe I am approaching comprehensivity in the article, covering notable structural and geographical distinctions. I would be very grateful if you take a critical look at it, and if you have some points of criticism, we can have discussions at the Talk Page? For Sati, Indian immolation of widows, I made use of referenced excerpts from the main articleArildnordby (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you help me out in an unpleasant edit "war"?
Hi there! With no valid argumentation whtsoever, one editor removed all on sati 6700++ involved, on Death by burning first claiming it was "Way too old", and then making up one charge after the other. I call that, and called that, vandalism. Then, he gathered up all his friends, in particular administrator User:Darkness Shines, who as acted as a complete bully, threatening to throw me out, having 0 arguments to back himself up with, but claiming I "misrepresented" sources at one point. Which I did not. I understand if you'd rather not get involved, so no hard feelings, but I am at a loss how to proceed here.Arildnordby (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Operation Flavius
Hi, thanks very much for your help. I'm still putting finishing touches to it (I drafted it offline, so it needs some tweaking ad probably paring down in a few places). Is there nay chance you could resist the urge to put more tags on for a day or two? Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I thought I'd addressed your who? tag wrt Eckert, but you added it back. What do you think is needed? Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you mind checking my edit summaries before re-editing changes I've made? For example, emdashes (—) should not have spaces around them according to MOS:DASH (if it were up to me, it wouldn't matter, but I'm aiming for FAC once I've written a lead and polished it a bit). Also, our article seems to think that "IRA" not "PIRA" is the preferred abbreviation for the Provisional Irish Republican Army, and all the books use "IRA" rather than "PIRA". I try hard to make my edit summaries easy to follow and link to relevant policies/guidelines when necessary, and if there's something you disagree with, I'm only too happy to discuss it on the talk page. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just been through it line by line for copy-editing/redundancy/excess detail (and addressed your clarify tag) and I'm reasonably happy with it now. See what you think. I've nominated it for an A-class review at MilHist, so you'd be very welcome to comment there if you wanted. I'm going to do Death on the Rock next, so I'd appreciate your input there as well! Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Dawn Zimmer
Hi. I reverted the portions of your edit to Dawn Zimmer, in which you changed the words "said" and "stated" to "made a public claim", back to the prior wording, per WP:CLAIM, for reasons explained at that MoS page. Let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss the matter further. Nightscream (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Question
Yes, rewording (with a quoted sentence if need be) should be fine. It wasn't so much the size of the quote itself that was an issue, but mainly how much of it was the article itself. If the article was already fairly sizable I wouldn't have blinked at it. Wizardman 22:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

David Camm page
Hi! I noticed that you indicated you felt that the David Camm page wasn't neutral. Is there some aspect of it that strikes you as biased that I can work on? Also, you made a note regarding the Rossmo quote. What specifically made you notice that quote? Does his comment differ from any other quotes given by experts who commented on or testified in the case? I am not Rossmo if that's what was meant by original research seeking publicity. He was a witness for the defense and testified to that in court. I included that particular quote for a few reasons. For one thing, that was a big part of the defense's case: they were alleging that the misconduct stemmed from confirmation bias. Secondly, there have been a lot of allegations by a lot of people regarding corruption in the case and I included quotes from several people criticizing the actions of the police and prosecutors in the case. The article then includes a fairly lengthy section describing the misconduct and apparent incompetence within the police and prosecutors office. I felt that it needed balancing and I felt like that specific quote improved the neutrality of the section. He was a defense witness, but he also put it in the context of giving them the benefit of he doubt (saying this is possibly accidental misconduct due vs. intentional illegal actions). It's tricky when writing about living people doing illegal things, I thought perhaps it's more fair and balanced to frame it in a context of *this could've been an accident*. Does that make sense? Anyway, what do you think? Were there other things that seemed unbiased? Should I remove that quote? Bali88 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for all your help! If you have time (and the desire to do so), would you be able to look over the article and tell me what you think of the content? I've gotten a lot of feedback on how the article fits in with the guidelines of wikipedia in terms of style, citations, etc., but I'd really like feedback on how informative the article is. Does the article do a good job describing the case? Were there aspects that were confusing? Were you left with questions at the end of it? Don't feel obligated, but if you have time. :-) Bali88 (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement for my restructuring on Death by Burning!
It motivates me strongly to get through this "invisible", utterly boring, but in my view, necessary task. Thanks a lot!!:-)Arildnordby (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Lisa Bufano
I have fleshed out the article with David Bufano's reflection on his sister's death, as it speaks to the impact she and her art had on so many people. Invoke Wikipedia policy next time. kencf0618 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Flavius/Troubles/1RR
Robert just advising you to self-revert your last edit on Operation Flavius, the article is under 1RR. Cheers bud. Murry1975 (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, its quite easy to do on a 1RR article, in good faith like you did. Murry1975 (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well even outside the 24 hour period may be taken as pointy. The best advice I can give is have a chat with Scolaire and come to a compromise on the wording, which is purely for clarity, and once a suitable compromise is reach then edit if nessecary. Murry1975 (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you may not have read or digested what Murry said about reverting just outside the 24 hour period, given this edit summary. It's called gaming the system, and it's sanctionable just the same as if you had broken the rule. Re-reverting your self-revert was not wise, especially considering you had already told myself and that you wanted to get agreement on the wording first.  Scolaire (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I also came here to advise you that the edit linked to above by Scolarie is not acceptable. There is no automatic right to a revert, no matter how long has elapsed since your previous one. You have been formally advised previously that the Operation Flavius article is subject to discretionary sanctions as authorised in the The Troubles arbitration case (WP:TROUBLES), and that a general 1RR restriction applies to the article. You do not appear to be abiding by the spirit of this restriction and your actions are continuing to be perceived by other editors as unhelpful to the cause of improving the article I am using the authority provided by the discretionary sanctions to impose further editing restrictions on you. Specifically, a WP:0RR restriction: You are prohibited from making any reverts, whether explicitly marked as such or not, to the Operation Flavius article (a WP:0RR restriction). This sanction may be appealed at Arbitration enforcement. I will make a note of this on the arbitration page and on the article talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)