User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com/Archive 9

Note
Funny how your trying to point the sword at me and and accuse me of harassment. Anyway before you rather naively revert or delete this message for NO reason, once again. I have noticed youve been indefinately banned several times for many things including 3RR, vandalism and your username; Pity it didn't stick. Also that first message you plastered on my talkpage could be classed as a personal attack, i was genuinelly taken back by it and with that i will no longer waste my patience with you, if your going to continue acting in a rather juvenile manner. In your words; there is nothing further to disuss. User:Goldblooded (Return Fire) 14:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: Complaint left regarding Goldblooded's behavior and editing at WP:ANI (see ), in which I was vindicated entirely. Quis separabit? 16:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What??
No Barnstars? Can't have that!!

Jeffrey Catherine Jones
Hi Robert. You placed an Inline Citation tag on this page though it seems to have citations for most everything there. You also placed an NPOV but there's no current or recent discussion about an NPOV problem, nor does it seem to exist in the article. Please explain your reasoning on the talk page so it can be addressed. Best, MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Better safe than sorry I always say. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed better safe, thank you. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Bea Lillie
Please do a Google search on the full name, "Constance Sylvia Gladys Munston" and see what you come up with. Michael David (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about having to start a new section for this but, for some reason I'm not able to edict individual Sections - either here in Talk, ot in the Encyclopedia itself. As fot Bea Lillie's name; I don't think this is a mirror of anything: http://www.theater-dictionary.com/definition/Beatrice-Lillie.html. What do you think? - Michael David (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You clearly have done more research on this than I have. Therefore, I agree with you to leave the text as it is for now. Thank you for your input and collaboration. - Michael David (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ronnie Barker
Hi. Could you explain why you are adding citation needed tags to the lead? The content is all sourced in the article itself and therefore does not need to be sourced in the lead. Gran2 14:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake -- I misunderstood WP:MOS on (not) fact-tagging ledes. Thanks for pointing it out. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My sincere thanks...
For your work at Beatrice Pons. I searched all over the internet trying to find out if and when she had died. Your tireless work in settling this matter is much appreciated. That you worked as hard as you did to make sure our article on an obscure actress got it right is truly impressive. You are a a great asset to this great project! Joefromrandb (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your Apology
Hello, I accept your apology for having used unprofessional language on my Talk page. Billsmith60 (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Debelić
He was a veterinarian and a minister of economy in a country which was an Axis ally. Does every single soldier or government official in Axis-allied countries fits the definition of a "Nazi collaborator"?  Timbouctou ( talk ) 11:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the article say anything about his "Nazi collaboration" at all or did guilt by association become a policy on Wikipedia? Would you be "concerned" if this was a Japanese/Italian WWII veterinarian-turned-minister of economy?  Timbouctou ( talk ) 11:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Possibly misguided" is an excellent description of the editing history of who added that category pretty arbitrarily in the first place. FYI the entire Category:Independent State of Croatia is already in the Category:Collaboration during World War II so I see no point in mass-adding every single related individual to that category like our esteemed anonymous colleague does. Had you done your homework you would have noticed that our Serbia-based anon seems to have a real problem with the WWII Independent State of Croatia and everything and everyone even remotely related to it. This is understandable perhaps since that regime had made a point of persecuting Serbs - but it's hardly very encyclopedic is it? And I only noticed his contribs when I happened to catch the pretty ridiculous edit he made to the Poglavnik article some six weeks ago. Oh and btw E moj druže beogradski is not a "war propaganda song", Ivo Vojnović is not a Serbian writer and genocide-praising songs can hardly collaborate with the Nazis on their own. Does any of these concern you?  Timbouctou  ( talk ) 12:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Citation needed
Hi there. Not sure you're aware, but if you include the in an article without required the date field, a bot will later need to make an edit to add the proper information. If you tag statements as, the bot won't need to make the edit after adding your tags. Enjoy!  Sottolacqua  (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sian Barbara Allen


A tag has been placed on Sian Barbara Allen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sian Barbara Allen
Hy! I never reverted the fact that Thomas and Allen met on the film You'll Like My Mother.

It is clear in the statement "She appeared in You'll Like My Mother (1972), starring Patty Duke, Rosemary Murphy and Richard Thomas". It's totally useless and redundant repeat one sentence later: "Richard Thomas, with whom she had appeared in You'll Like My Mother"... Adding to this, it simply repeats that these two actors worked together - without any reference to their personal relationship.

If you want to say that at that time they had a personal relationship and that Allen was hired on Thomas's series for Thomas'influence, write it, plain and simple! Good editing!--Cavarrone (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ed Henry


The article Ed Henry has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * There is no evidence of notability of this reporter; this article violates WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:CREATIVE.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Away from the AFD...
Perhaps we were both being too sensitive? I disliked an assertion that my concerns toward WP:WORLDVIEW were "offensive and obnoxious", and that was reflected in my edit summary addressing what I felt was a personal attack. My aplogies. And I think that you disliked thinking I was adressing my comment at you, as opposed to me addressing a greater issue. I believe that we both can agree that translating possible sources will need input from those better able to do so than you and I. Pax?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. We should work together to better Wikipedia. Yours, Quis separabit?  21:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Agoston Haraszthy
hello,

do you have any examples of non-neutrality in Agoston Haraszthy? One editor asked this and more on the help desk. Thanks.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 16:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

COI?
Hi. :) Somebody else has already removed the COI tag you placed on Jimmy Norman, but I just wanted to stop by because I was really curious. Can you please explain what makes you think a major contributor to the article has a close connection with the subject? As I am currently perhaps the only major contributor to that article, I'm wondering what makes you think so. :) I've never met Mr. Norman and am not even familiar with his work beyond his contributions to the Rolling Stones song. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Charmaine Yoest for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charmaine Yoest is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Charmaine Yoest until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Diane Sinclair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to New York World's Fair, Elmhurst, New York

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * FIXED, I think. Quis separabit?  19:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

O'Donnell
Just curious, what made you believe that he did not die on 29th November? Greetings--Andres arg (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I recall, the original obituary provided did not indicate a date of death. The current one does, however ("Fallecio este martes"), so it is clear now. Quis separabit?  14:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source
Tuck was the author of numerous historical works including The holy war in Los Altos: a regional analysis of Mexico's Cristero rebellion and Pancho Villa and John Reed: two faces of romantic revolution both published by published by University of Arizona Press. He's written many essays and articles on Mexican history. I would say, yes, he is a reliable source. Mamalujo (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree. As with his other historical essays, articles and books, I think it's a reliable source. Mamalujo (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing (and reverting)
Hello again. Having finally convinced the administrators that I am who I say I am, my account's been unblocked and I'm free to edit again. Before I go back and edit the page that caused all the trouble between us, I want to run my suggestions past you to make sure we don't have any further problems. As I understand it, your original objection to the link to my page on my agent's website was that that page had no mention of the school whose page I was attempting to edit. Is that still the objection, or is it now your later objection that the link is promotional? There are other links from alumni of the school that link either to personal websites or to online biographies, not all of them mentioning the school, so I'd be genuinely grateful for an explanation of why my link is unacceptable and other alumni's are. Is it simply that I'm putting it up there myself rather than someone else doing it? I had also hoped that by putting up the second link, the one linking to the Philharmonia Orchestra which DOES mention the school, the relevance question would have been answered.

However, if you insist that I cannot link to my agent's website, what I would like to do is to link to an updated version of the Philharmonia page (which is nearly 5 years old). The update consists of a rewritten last paragraph and the addition of a photo. You can look at it on http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3328469/salesian-college-biography-pdf-december-5-2011-12-13-pm-9k?da=y before I edit the page, and tell me if it's acceptable (and if not, why not: I don't think it contains anything that, for example, Catherine Tate's linked page doesn't contain). I genuinely want to avoid breaking any rules, but frankly there have been some shifting goalposts in this whole saga..!

And finally, did you ever receive the e-mail I sent you when I couldn't access or edit your talk page? Regards, PeterSidhom (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the absence of a reply from you, I've gone ahead and edited the page as per my second paragraph above (ie updated what was the Philharmonia Orchestra link). I sincerely hope that this doesn't cause you to restart the reversion wars..! Regards, PeterSidhom (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood Walk of Fame
Glad to see you back involved, but in this pretty complicated diff, did you delete body text? The diff makes it awfully hard to see... --Lexein (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I was getting cross-eyed. (r here) --19:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD
Hey Robert. Awhile back you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swalling@undefinedwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk   01:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Rhys career
Just wondering about some of the Matthew Rhys changes you made end of January. Why for instance did you delete "Everything Carries Me To You", "Sorted" and "Tabloid" (and others) from his tv/film projects listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icla (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I love Welsh actors (Bale, Yeoman, Gruffudd) as much as the next guy, but those lame credits are/were red-linked and unlikely to be made into articles, thus non-notable, per se. Quis separabit?  00:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. They are part of his acting career and people who visit his page on Wikipedia should find them listed there! Nothing lame about it. If some titles are not mentioned - fine. But those that are, why delete them?? Icla (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a link to his IMDb page where such information had been painstakingly compiled and can be viewed gratis, as with all actors, directors, etc. I am not entirely in agreement with those who indiscriminately replicate that info. on Wikipedia. IMDb exists for a purpose. Anyway, if you want to restore the info on Rhys' page, feel free. Yours, Quis separabit?  00:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But of course IMDb will give you similar/the same information as Wikipedia (and vice versa). That can't be helped and why shouldn't there be the same info on both sites? Some people prefer consulting Wikipedia, some prefer IMDb. I find it more painful to update IMDb than Wikipedia, that's why I don't update pages on IMDb (anymore). And I added "Everything Carries Me To You" here for instance (certainly not copying it from IMDb - it appeared there later) because I received first-hand info from the director herself who tweeted me the name of Matthew Rhys' character. Similar stuff with "Think Tank" and its director. I want the readers here to find the most accurate info on Matthew Rhys, so yes, I will restore his career info. Icla (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jeremy Doyle
The DYK project (nominate) 23:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Doyle
Hi Rms, this is just to let you know that I've nominated the OTRS image of Jeremy Doyle for Featured Picture at Featured picture candidates/Jeremy Doyle. As you worked on the article, you may be interested. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Florin Krasniqi
Hello. Please be aware that your edit here was erroneous and the claim of vandalism in the summary was also inaccurate. I appreciate that your contribution was made in good faith and mine may have even appeared unconstructive to a number of recent change patrollers though I assure you that my edit was wholly appropriate. If you require elucidation, I am happy to provide this though I should point out that had you tracked my history, you'll have noticed that I have six unbroken years as an editor here and no single edit of mine constitutes vandalism, just as yours don't. Mistakes are easily made which is why I explain this on your talk. Any queries, please leave me a message. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. I found them a bit strange too (the capitals) and I still cannot work out where they came from. You reintroduced them here but looking at your summary which mentions "rv", it appears that even you were working on an older revision. Not to worry, it's very easy to miss these things. The publication is real, hence the article/sources but you did the right thing by replacing the text with small letters. Cheers Rms. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Unseen character edits
Rms125a@hotmail.com, you should check Articles for deletion/Unseen character (3rd nomination). Note also that there were two previous discussions about deleting the article and also was a list article that was deleted after discussion here: Articles for deletion/List of unseen characters. The edits you added turn the article back in the direction of a list. As the issue has been discussed several times before and consensus has been to purge the page from lists, my reversion was just a restoration of that consensus. 99.192.83.238 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See additional comment on my talk page. 99.192.83.238 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to go offline for a while now, but when I return I will check for your reply to my most recent comment on my talk page. I see you have fixed the list/paragraph problem, but there still is the matter of the "absolute minimum". In short, since the examples are only meant to illustrate the concept, I do not see how someone could have read the page as it was before your additions and not understood what the concept was. If that's right, then no more examples were necessary and thus would be more than the "absolute minimum". See you later! 99.192.83.238 (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Since my ISP has assigned me a new IP address and the issue of the editing of the article might be of interest to other editors, have moved the discussion to the talk page for "Unseen character". 99.192.86.244 (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.83.238)

Re: Szymborska
Several sources confirm she signed (not called for...) a petition condemning (not demanding an execution) the falsely accused priests. This should be clarified in the text now, with sources. Read more in the Stalinist show trial of the Kraków Curia and the petition has an article on pl wiki: pl:Rezolucja Związku Literatów Polskich w Krakowie w sprawie procesu krakowskiego, with a full text on wikisource (or in the sources cited). If you'd like a translation, and Google Translate is not enough, ask at WT:POLAND. I have to take a break from editing now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 01:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Frederick William Danker
Hey, noticed you tinkering at Joseph W. Estabrook, and thought I'd ask someone with more experience - What steps are recommended when the Obit gets the year of death wrong (if any)? Dru of Id (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They got the year of birth and age correct, but (2nd line): " died  February 2, 2011 , in St. Louis, Mo. He was 91 years old". is incorrect (last year). I'll look for a reference that gets it right, Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mladen Lorković
What sort of clarification I need to make in the article. After a word "coup" you put [clarification needed] sign.

And thanks alot for fixing my spelling mistakes, I really appreciate that. --Wusten fuchs 14:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Doris Day
I understand that you are a senior editor here at Wikipedia, but with all due respect, I do not appreciate my comments being called "naive" and "facile". I was attempting to put to rest a contentious issue to which I was reasonable confident I had finally found a definitive answer. Frankly, if there is anything preposterous about this situation, I think it is the fact that we have the word of Doris Day herself stating this month that her birthdate is April 3, 1924, and anyone has the temerity to contest her because her word conflicts with various other second-hand reports, all of which seem to contradict each other as it is. As you mention yourself, Day's biographer lists 1922 as her birthdate, yet census records allegedly place her birthdate as 1923. There is no way to account for this discrepancy, and obviously only one of these dates (or neither) must be the correct one.

Therefore, based on what little evidence exists to confirm any one date as Day's definitive date of birth, I think it only makes sense to take Day at her word when she says she was born in 1924. To suggest that she is so elderly that she can no longer remember her own birthdate, a date which she has no doubt had to write down countless times over the years on legal and medical documents, or to suggest that she is simply lying, is to me far more absurd than simply taking her at her word. R.h.c.afounder1 (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead links issue
Hello. Thanks for your contributions. I just wanted to call your attention that several "dead links" you deleted recently were not in fact "dead", as I have been able to access them in the past hour. For instance:


 * Article: Nastassja Kinski: Diff-1 and Diff-2 -- See Link.
 * Article: Jack Conway: Diff -- See Link.
 * Article: Pamela Anderson: Diff-1 -- See Link-1a.

Other links, though dead, are still available on the Internet Archive:


 * Article: Jeff Greene: Diff -- See Archive
 * Article: Rick Scott: Diff -- See Archive.
 * Article: Pamela Anderson: Diff-1 -- See Archive-1b. Diff-2 -- See Archive-2.

You may also want to review Wikipedia's Dead Link policy on WP:DEADLINK. It discourages deleting dead links as they may provide information to find the original source (even if the only available source is the printed version). It also encourages using archived sources as replacements. Thanks, --HYC (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels
See discussion at User talk:EEMIV, at If convenient, I'd appreciate some help in actual secondary sourcing. (or at least,improve the primary sourcing, if you have the books at hand, by adding citations to chapter & if possible page of whatever edition you have).  DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Bout edits
Please explain removal of "blatant speculation" on the Viktor Bout page. The cited sources seem no less reliable than those you take no issue with. Obviously Bout has been surrounded by speculation, and I would encourage you to remove sources that are of low quality. But you must defend your actions! Why are these sources of low quality? Especially the LA Times. Fleetham (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While I reverted your deletion of material that supports Bout selling airplanes to the Taliban (check this source to confirm that evidence suggests he did do so), I removed material that stated "some say he sold the Taliban arms." The source that supported this latter statement suggest the "Russian Mafia" sold the Taliban arms but did not mention Bout. You removed material that seemed like speculation, but such speculative wording is only on the Wikipedia page per WP:BOLP. The LA Times unequivocally states that Bout sold a half-dozen or so planes to a Taliban agent in the UAE. Fleetham (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Singers awarded knighthoods
Hi Rms, I've moved your requested rename of Category:Singers awarded knighthoods to Categories for discussion, where renames of categories are discussed. Its entry is here. Best, BDD (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions
Hello. Editing page Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions is pointless, since it's maintained from a bot. Any updates you do will be erased by the next run of the bot. You should instead update the move request itself, which is the input to the bot.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Categories for discussion/Speedy
My opposition is procedural only and token at best, but they deserve to all go one way or the other, unless consensus really is to have them different. Sorry for the delay; I hate waiting on discussions myself. Dru of Id (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Where in Queenston?
You put a Where tag in the Laura Secord article for when Laura rushed to James side. Giving that they lived in Queenston, and James was wounded at the Battle of Queenston Heights, which took place in Queenston, is this tag really necessary? Should it really state she ran from her home in Queenston to the battle in Queenston? How should this be rectified?  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 23:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If I thought it was unambiguously mistaken, I would have just removed the tag. I'm sorry if my choice of words was offensive.  C üRly T üRkey  <sup style="margin-left:1.5ex;">Talk <sub style="margin-left:-5ex;">Contribs 20:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lily Cole
Hello, I've noticed your interest in this (general) subject matter and I wonder if you could help me out on Lily Cole, a scenario I'm frankly baffled is still continuing. A bunch of second-hand good-for-nothing websites list Cole as born in May 1988 (i.e. the IMDB, fashionmodeldirectory, etc.). Cole's birth was clearly registered in February 1988 (ancestry.com; that means she was born that month or one of the few before, but not months after). The Evening Standard, dated February 26, 2004, states that Cole is 16 at that time. Link here. She was mentioned as just having turned 20 in early January 2008 (by an actual newspaper) and then Lily Cole herself, on her verified Twitter account, twitted her 24th birthday on December 27, 2011, and then replied in the affirmative to somebody wishing her a happy birthday (meaning she was born December 27, 1987). Obviously, Cole has no problem stating what her actual birthdate is. Yet, various "editors" have converged on Talk:Lily Cole and are totally ignoring common sense and logic. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Her birth was registered in February 1988. At that point, the birth registries had stopped being divided into quarters and instead were monthly, so more specific. IMDB definitely isn't a reliable source and they are probably the cause of much of the mischief here. :-) All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether you can view the month on ancestry.com. But if you put in "Lily Luahana Cole" and "February 1988" into the ancestry.com search engine I believe you will get a match even without a subscription. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Le Duan
I've reverted you're edits... While some of you're edits were good; specially the twiking of the grammar. Some of it was destructive; for instance, you replaced Le with Duan in the text.. This is stupid, considering the fact Le is his surname. Vietnam follows Chinese naming conventions; for instance, just as the Chinese Hu Jintao's firstname is Jintao, and not, Le Duan's first name is Duan, not Le... In parts of Asia (and Africa), what we consider to be the first name is actually the last name... --TIAYN (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Charlotte Rae
A relative of Charlotte Rae notes that Miriam is still alive. The sentence in question "She had two sisters, Miriam and the late Beverly (December 21, 1921 – June 2, 1998)", with the use of past tense "had", might be confusing. I don't see a simple fix; they have suggested using two sentences, but I haven't found a good replacement. Any thoughts?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Angharad Rees
I notice that you have undone the edit I made on the Angharad Rees page, calling it a "blatant POV". The quote is not mine but taken directly from the source I used, namely the Museum of Broadcast Communications article on Poldark, which quotes the sales figures for the series. Therefore it is not POV under the rules, it is a sourced reference and as such I feel that it should be included. Would you not agree? I don't understand why you should twice call it a POV. Manxwoman (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that! I didn't want to get a reputation for including POVs. It is of course arguable that the information that I included with the source is not necessary on this page at all, but would be better placed on the Poldark page itself... Manxwoman (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC
Hi, I presume you were invited earlier, but you may wish to sign Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese) box. Secondly, I noticed on Au Co you have (quite reasonably) twice restored accents twice removed] by Kauffner, This article was proxy moved by a G6 "uncontroversial dbmove" tag last year following the RM on the Vietnamese mathematician. The move probably should be restored. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I missed your sensible hotmail User ID under the equally admirable Quis separabit? and therefore failed to make the connection and include you in the census box. However the whole census box has now twice been deleted from Talk by a tennis editor... (!) The reason I, for one didn't comment on your distinction between title and article content was because I'm not sure myself. The de-accenting of Au Co, and the message left on Talk there does seem to be in accord with the MOS line quoted - though I'm not sure that it's a stable part of that MOS page or was intended to cover accents. Thanks for your message. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy edits
Please be more careful with your edits on this article. You labelled a major edit simply as "tweaked", when in actuality your edit introduced a spelling error and removed valid sourced information. Also, please remember that the use of non-breaking spaces is allowed for dates, so please do not remove them. For articles that are undergoing a lot of edits within a short period of time, it would be helpful if your edit summaries were more descriptive so that when errors are accidentally introduced, other editors can find them via the edit summaries more easily than having to just browse through each dif. Thank you. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Eugene Genovese
My mistake and my apologies. I was removing unsourced categories related to the unsourced statements about his Catholicism, and apparently I was too hasty. Thanks for fixing it. Cresix (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Bill Tarmey
Just noticed your edits to the above -- good stuff. One question though - as he died in Tenerife, is Category:Disease-related deaths in England appropriate, or does it also apply to disease related deaths of English people wherever they died? Will watch this page so please reply here. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

John Creaney
Hello,, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on John Creaney, appears to be directly copied from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/2081055/John-Creaney-Senior-counsel-in-Northern-Ireland-who-prosecuted-many-terrorists-during-the-Troubles..html. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on John Creaney if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Anne Haddy
I did read the Anne Haddy obituary in the Independent that stated she was born in 1927. However, I presume that you didn't read her obituary that appeared in the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/1999/jun/08/guardianobituaries.emmaowen

This obituary states she was born on October 5, 1930. If you type 'Anne haddy 1930' or 'Anne Haddy 68' into Google, you will see a whole host of credible sources that confirm this information. The only sources that state she was born in 1927 and died at the age of 71 are the ones that rely on Wikipedia to provide their information.

Strictly speaking, I probably should have left an edit summary. However, I believe I am justified in making this edit and justified in not referencing the date of birth of 1930.

The very fact that 'name, date of birth and date of death' has been referenced in this article outlines that it is contentious (at the very least). If the Independent erroneously published an article that said Barack Obama was born in 1960 instead of 1961, it wouldn't be strong enough grounds for me to reference his correct birth date of 1961 on his article. Nor would it be sufficient grounds for me to change his birth date to 1960 and reference this with an erroneous article.

I'm not going to make any further changes to the article in question. However, I though it necessary to explain myself as nobody's ever accused to of "borderline vandalism" or of making a "bizarrely indefensible edit" before in over six years of editing Wikipedia articles.

Standingfish (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I fully respect the fact that you've now acknowledged that Anne Haddy's year of birth is disputed.


 * However, given that her year of birth is uncertain, I find it puzzling why you think her obituary in the Independent carries greater weight than not only her obituary in the Guardian but a whole host of respectable sources.


 * These respectable sources include the BBC, Inside Soap magazine, the Internet Movie Database, The Perfect Blend website, the Daily Mail, The Herald and The News Letter just to name a few.


 * Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/1999/jun/08/guardianobituaries.emmaowen
 * BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/362967.stm
 * Inside Soap magazine: http://www.thateden.co.uk/prisoner/news35.htm
 * Internet Movie Database: http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm0352760/
 * The Perfect Blend: http://www.perfectblend.net/neighbourhood/pro/haddy-anne.htm
 * Daily Mail: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-109864077.html
 * The Herald: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23741818.html
 * The News Letter: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60193198.html


 * If you read her obituary on The Perfect Blend website, you will see that it is every bit as authoritative as her obituary in the Independent and Guardian and it states she was born in 1930. Furthermore, there's no more authorative source on television than the Internet Movie Database and that also states she was born in 1930.


 * I accept that having searched the internet with a fine toothcomb, there are one or two other sources (other than extracts from her Wikipedia article) that suggest she was born in 1927, but also sources that suggest she was born in 1928 and 1931. The fact of the matter is, there is - in comparison - overwhelming cause to believe that she was born in 1930.


 * My recommendation would be to change her date of birth to 1930, but at the same time to acknowledge that it is disputed. You won't be hearing anything more from me about this as I'll leave it with you to decide what to do for the best.


 * Standingfish (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Walter Walsh
Hi, I was wondering if you could explain what you meant by your edit summary "tweaked". Aside from editing (and separating) the first two sentences, I can't really tell what's been done, but there's a 203 character change. Thanks. Canadian  Paul  04:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the reason I asked is because I really can't see anything in the diff because the section re-organizing turns everything red (at least in the skin that I use), so I couldn't tell. It doesn't look like much was done, however, as you said, so I guess I just don't know why there was a difference of 203 characters. Oh well. Canadian   Paul  22:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dusty Sklar


The article Dusty Sklar has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Patchy1 03:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

BGeorgiou
You maybe would want to look at my observation about the COI template you added to this article. There's not lots of independent coverage on the subject but I think there's a reasonable base of sourced info fwiw. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Better I think. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Charles Hopel Brown
The article Charles Hopel Brown has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unable to find any reliable references, however "Charles Brown" and "Charles H. Brown" are common names. No references in article to satisfy WP:GNG.   Book is self-published.  Nothing in the article says person is notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Move of Brian Nelson
Your move of Brian Nelson (1948–2003) to Brian Nelson (Northern Irish loyalist) may not be trivial; Brian Nelson (1948–2003) was referenced in a template: Template:Ulster_Defence_Association. I've edited the template to point "Brian Nelson" to Brian Nelson (Northern Irish loyalist) but as the "what links here" list for the "1948-2003" version shows, simply deleting it per your speedy deletion request may lead to a lot of redlinks due to transclusion of that template. Tonywalton Talk 23:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jeppiz (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for totally inappropriate, inflammatory, and divisive commentary on talk pages. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MastCell Talk 18:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert. Sorry to see that you're blocked for a week again, but unfortunately, you were completely out of order there. Please now, however, don't do anything rash, don't decide to sock or anything. Just wait out the block, maybe go to another wiki for a while, and come back in a week's time where you'll be welcome to edit again. Just looking out for ya ;) - A l is o n  ❤ 19:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have reported it. Emotions were running high at the time. <b style="color:Green;">Basket </b><sub style="color:orange;">Feudalist 11:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said in my report, I think you're a valuable user and I would not have opted for a week myself. But as Alison says, some of these comments were really out of line. I hope you'll be back soon!Jeppiz (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on the feedback here and at WP:AN/I, I'm going to unblock you with the understanding that the comments in question were inappropriate, particularly for an article talk page, but that emotions were indeed high at the time and it won't happen again. Does that sound reasonable to you? MastCell Talk 15:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * OK thanks, MastCell. As I explained to Alison, I expected the block. I understand I was out of line and emotions were indeed high, but I won't make excuses or pretend to have been, as they always say, "taken out of context". I fully expected to serve the week, but I do accept your offer if I may. I tried to leave you a message on your talk page but couldn't due to the block. Quis separabit?  01:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As the user who brought this to ANI, I support unblocking. I thought, and still think, the comments were out of line, but as the user recognizes it, I see no reason for a longer block.Jeppiz (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked users requesting unblocking are typically expected to post the unblock-request template on their user talk page. --Orlady (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm good with rms' response and with the unblock. Happy editing. MastCell Talk 18:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Bernard Green
Hello. Just a question about your recent edit to the article on Bernard Green. I do not like to revert people's edits except where it is plain vandalism, as I prefer, in line with Wikipedia guidelines, to try to establish consensus. You may see that I have recently reverted vandalism on this article by an unregistered user whose IP address indicates membership of Oxford University (and a specific location within St Benet's Hall).

Your edit summary says, "lede reworded for accuracy". I am not quite sure, however, in what way your edit does lead to great accuracy. The original text read simply: "He was also a convicted sex offender." Your edit changed this to: "His last years were marked by scandal and controversy when he was accused of indecent assault, to which he plead guilty." I'm afraid this seems to me to be both in part unsubstantiated and also in part somewhat weasel-worded.

For one thing, the incident that led to Green's conviction took place in 1995, nearly eighteen years before his death at the age of around sixty, so I would hardly call this period "his last years", representing, as it does, nearly one third of his entire lifespan. Furthermore, most of Green's academic work, making up the greater part of his notability, was undertaken following his conviction, so his last years were, if anything, marked by acclaim for his scholarly achievements, not by scandal surrounding a criminal conviction almost two decades earlier.

Secondly, if you are going to state that any part of Green's life was marked by scandal and controversy, you are going to have to provide sources for that statement in the main body of the article. It is not enough to draw the inference that anybody, not least a priest and schoolmaster, convicted of indecently assaulting a child would be likely to arouse a certain level of scandal and controversy. Moreover, while scandal may be fairly obvious, it is far from clear in what way this incident was controversial.

Thirdly, whether or not it was your intention, I think that to say, "he was accused of indecent assault, to which he plead guilty", is very much open to an interpretation of being weasel-worded, of trying imply something by not quite saying it, or even by saying something on the face of it contrary to what actually seems to be being said. That Green was a convicted sex offender is simply a statement of fact: he was convicted, and the crime of which he was convicted was a sexual offence. What the article now says is open to the interpretation that an accusation was made, that he pleaded guilty to that accusation, but that his guilt is nonetheless in some doubt, or that there are complexities in the case that are not adequately covered by the statement that he was a convicted sex offender. In fact, so much was implied by the headmaster at the time of the offence: it was said that Green recognised after the event that his behaviour had been "inappropriate", and the school initially expected the incident to be investigated internally without recourse to the criminal justice system. If the original wording is not adequate, I would suggest something purely factual, such as, "Upon entering a guilty plea he was convicted of indecently assaulting a child during his period as a housemaster at Ampleforth College", or "In connection with his period as a housemaster at Ampleforth College he was convicted of the indecent assault of a child, to which he pleaded guilty", or "Shortly after his resignation as a housemaster at Ampleforth College he was charged with indecently assaulting a child, to which he pleaded guilty. He was later also accused of harassing an adult student at St Benet's Hall, Oxford." I shall also post this to the talk page of the article to facilitate wider discussion.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Tish James

 * Your edits are destructive POV-based ones. And please stop trying to shoehorn Laurie Cumbo in there before she's even in or I will get you blocked.--71.167.144.190 (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice

 * [[Image:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--71.167.144.190 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Responded on your ANI
-- 71.167.144.190 (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Timothy Maude
Hi. Regarding your edit to Timothy Maude, just so you know, removal is not the proper procedure for addressing a dead link. Please see Link rot for an further explanation on this. For now, don't worry about the Maude article; I found a replacement source for the passage in question. Just letting you know for future reference. And thanks for the compliment to my earlier edit. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Westgate centre shooting
You have moved the page twice unilaterally without discussion. Per naming conventiosn this doesn't need caveat as it is the first and only such incident. Please stop moving it!(Lihaas (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).
 * 1. discuss. 2. That is not true if you see the official website of the mall. It is just Westgate.(Lihaas (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).
 * See that link. The first name, proper noun is Westgate. Where does it say Westgate Mall as a proper noun??? Premier shopping mall is the SUBheading, the marketing tool. It evens says "Welcome to Westgte"(Lihaas (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).
 * The year info is only if there is more than one. See thae ITN links for the US attacks a week ago. There is no year etc.(Lihaas (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).
 * Well its dodgy then. Takeit to talk to solve.(Lihaas (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).
 * Plkease refrain from reformatting my talk page commetns. You are NOT entitles to that(Lihaas (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).