User talk:Sunshineisles2/Archive 1

Welcome and introduction
Hi, Sunshineisles2. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck!  Chzz  ►  01:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Outsourced episodes
A tag has been placed on List of Outsourced episodes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Supertouch (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from List of Outsourced episodes, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Supertouch (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Outsourced episodes
A tag has been placed on List of Outsourced episodes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Supertouch (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here  Insert non-formatted text here   Insert non-formatted text here   Insert non-formatted text here   Insert non-formatted text here   Insert non-formatted text here --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Outsourced episodes
Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. Since there's only two known episodes so far, it seems premature to have the List of Outsourced episodes list created. I have redirected the list page to the original article. However I noticed the text you added was the official (network) summary. Please note that Wikipedia can not accept material which is under copyright, including promotional material. I realize it is difficult to write text for an article which has not yet come out, but perhaps the plot summary will have to wait until the episode airs, so that the content can be originally written. In any event, let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to List of Outsourced episodes. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy.

Before episodes have aired, adding listing information is original research, and/or comes from non-reliable sources. I cannot see any WP:RS for even episode names, yet, so I can only assume you are basing this information on rumours. In future, please stick to verifiable information from appropriate reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Of course, it's fine to add appropriate lists of aired episodes, but only one has aired. So I can't see that a list of episodes is appropriate at this stage. At the minimum, we'd need some reliable source giving the names of episodes. Thank you.  Chzz  ► 14:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to J. K. Rowling, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Bernie Sanders is on the front porch with Mike Klopp

License tagging for File:MV5BMjE3NTk0ODI3MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzEzMTQ5Mg@@. V1. SX214 CR0,0,214,314 .jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MV5BMjE3NTk0ODI3MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzEzMTQ5Mg@@. V1. SX214 CR0,0,214,314 .jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=565216533 your edit] to I Wish (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tomatoes]]

License tagging for File:DusseaultPierreLuc NDP.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:DusseaultPierreLuc NDP.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

James Berardinelli
Do not edit-war. Once you're reverted, take it to the talk page per WP:BRD. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a note
Hi Sunshineisles2. Just a friendly tip that if you want a page you created deleted, such as Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp (4th nomination), you can tag it with (speedy deletion criterion G7). Hope this is useful with your future editing. Altamel (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see you have already taken the step to do so. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lisbet Lundquist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rita. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Howard Kissel has been accepted
 Howard Kissel, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Wxidea (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Howard_Kissel help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Melissa Harris-Perry
My apologies for reverting your first edit. I was too hasty. Happy New Year! Sundayclose (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's alright. Happy new year! --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

David Hartwell
The Locus piece was wrong - premature - see the Locus front page now. His wife reported half an hour ago that he is in very critical condition and is not expected to survive, but he is still alive. Please wait. Tvoz / talk 06:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. It seems there has been a bit of confusion all night over whether he is alive or not. In any case, I have reverted the article to a "critical condition" version that I briefly had up. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there has been a lot of confusion. But my information is accurate as of 1:30 AM EST - Locus and PNH had it wrong. Thanks for the fix - this is very sad and difficult. Tvoz / talk 06:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't very familiar with Hartwell before hearing the sad news, but the more I've read about him, the more of an impact it's clear that he has had.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Tvoz / talk 08:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Hello, I'm Chesnaught555. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Donald Trump without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miguel Ferrer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rafael Ferrer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Please see WP:DISINFOBOX for some reasons why infoboxes are not needed or helpful in many articles. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am well aware of that page, and have used it before, but in this particular example, there was no reason given for its removal, no talk page discussion, or any prior complaints. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Andy Griffith Show
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Andy Griffith Show you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RegistryKey -- RegistryKey (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Andy Griffith Show
The article The Andy Griffith Show you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Andy Griffith Show for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RegistryKey -- RegistryKey (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom case you might be interested in
I just filed an arbitration request against, citing an example in which you were involved in. You might be interested in the case. Link is here:. Thanks, Banedon (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me, I'll have a look and maybe draft a statement. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate
You've made recent edits to Kevin L. Bryant, Hugh Leatherman, and Yancey McGill by deleting or altering the office of President pro tempore of the South Carolina Senate. Even though these offices were briefly held, they are important enough to note as it was a requirement in the gubernatorial line of succession. Additionally, the issues with "office jumping" resulted in a constitutional amendment, which is also notable. We believe you had the best intentions, but your edits have been reverted. --Nicholemacgregor (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for writing in and discussing this; I was actually hoping I could discuss these reverts with you. My decisions were performed along a reading of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which states that the information within an infobox should only contain essential, relevant information. I did and do not believe that assuming an office for only an instantaneous, transitional period merited its own parameter in the infobox. For an example of what I based my decisions off, if you look at the article on Alain Poher, who served as acting President of France on two occasions, neither tenure receives its own parameter in the infobox. Instead, it's only a footnote in the article, tied to the office that entitled him to serve as interim president (President of the Senate). The purpose of an infobox makes me wary that such brief tenures—especially ones that were not "intended" posts for a subject, and instead only away to assume another office—should be included. If the constitutional amendment to the "office jumping" episode is notable, then it can be mentioned in relevant article bodies (I don't see that information in the Bryant, Leatherman, or McGill articles, or even the article on the office itself.) Regardless, such information isn't actually clear by the context-free inclusion of a president pro tempore tenure in the IB, anyway.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd agree not to list Dick Cheney as acting president for four hours. But Hugh Leatherman resigned and was subsequently reelected. I doubt that qualifies as nonessential. The South Carolina law requiring the President Pro Tem to elevate to Lt. governor was a strange law and is the only reason these infoboxes are seemingly odd. But having the office present in the infobox allows the reader to trace the constitutional rule, it's nullification, and its effect on SC politics. --Nicholemacgregor (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the case is that the incongruities of this situation are themselves notable (and what causes the constitution to be amended), then you can certainly make a case for their IB inclusion, but none of this information is present on any of the four articles we're discussing. Because infoboxes are seen as summaries, and not invitations for further research, I'm not sure what information a reader could extrapolate by simply seeing that someone served as President Pro Tempore for less than one day, and how the average reader would then be incentivized to "trace" further information on the nullification of the constitutional rule in question. If the information is vital, then it should be in the article bodies to start with, and at the time of my edits, absolutely no information about this rule or its nullification was there, and thus, there was little reason to believe that it was relevant or necessary. The context you have used to justify very inclusion is not even present in the article text. I think that's a big part of where our differences in perspective here originate. Infoboxes are meant to synthesize what's in the article (WP:INFOBOXREF goes as far to suggest that citations shouldn't even be present in infoboxes), and introducing new information exclusively there is not its purpose. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Kim Jong-hyun (singer). As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of "President of the United States"
I noticed your edit on the article Barack Obama for the capitalization of "President of the United States" and I agree and appreciated it but if you visit other articles for other US presidents you would notice that user Joefromrandb changed like a dozen of them this way. I tried to fix them but he reverted my edits. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for stopping by. I am now seeing that the user in question has decided to make those changes. I think it would be worth trying to leave a message on his talk page on this matter if this dispute continues (i.e. if he reverts my edit at Barack Obama's article), instead of reverting them all back manually at once and possibly starting some bigger quarrel.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Linda Collins-Smith
&mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Whitney North Seymour Jr.
– Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE
Please reread this one – it doesn't say what you think it does, at all... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just did, and it is why I did not contest the revert.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

James Berardinelli
Sorry to respond a few months late. Was trying to do something nice. To put up his top ten list. Most films critics have top ten list on their pages. I am dumbfounded that you don't its necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:200:A661:A915:1ADD:C7F2:8995 (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many editors who have encountered such lists, myself included, have found top 10 lists on the articles of critics to be overly promotional and/or trivial. If you disagree, and believe that an archive of top 10 lists is appropriate on a particular page, please open a discussion on the article's talk page and try to seek consensus before adding them.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Chief Keef
Hello:

The reason the dates were in dmy format in the Chief Keef article is that when I began the copy edit for the GOCE all of them in the Infobox and the majority throughout the article were in that format. I was simply making them all consistent. I believe the general rule is the date format used when the article is created is the one later editors follow; it has nothing to do with where the subject was born. Since you've made the change I'll leave it alone. Regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . Hi, thanks for reaching out. I was operating based on my own reading of MOS:DATETIES. I assume that the general idea of it extends to biographies; i.e., a biography of an American would naturally use MDY and a biography of a British person would use DMY. I think I just didn't quite understand the reason for what seemed like a sudden change. Thanks for the clarification!--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Having read this again, it's really a judgment call depending upon the article's subject. But, like you, in this case I prefer the "strong ties" suggestion over "consistency". It just makes so much more sense. Thanks for pointing it out. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, no problem!--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Date format and Luzhkov
I see you are on the "dmy dates" side on the Yuri Luzhkov article...but the templates also say "use American English",to which dmy dates are totally foreign. How can this be resolved?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that I'm on a "side" for one or the other; rather, I'm just thinking about MOS:DATEUNIFY, and from a cursory look through the article, judged DMY to be more prevalent in the article than MDY, and so I switched the outlying dates over for consistency's sake.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ...creating total inconsistency with the use of American English.12.144.5.2 (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * PMJI, but one is for semi-automated checking of date format, and the other for semi-automated checking of spelling/manual adjustments of vocab in a few instances. If one necessitated the other their wouldn't be any need for two separate templates. Where mixed forms are found unifying on the one most prevalent is reasonable. If you disagree with having separate templates I think the village pump is the place to raise that issue. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Diffie's relationship with Liz Allison between 1993-94
My research shows that Diffie was first contacted by Liz in advance of Davy Allison's funeral for the purpose of obtaining the sheet music to one of Diffie's hits. Diffie sang the song at the funeral and a friendship blossomed which led to their living together in Nashville. Diffie's wife had filed for a legal separation and was awarded a divorce in 1996. The way the narrative currently reads is that whomever wrote it has an ax to grind in order to make Joe and Liz appear to be doing something wrong. They weren't. Joe was legally separated and taking care of his wife and children and lived separate and apart from them while he was with Liz in a committed relationship, a relationship his wife was fully aware of. I think the narrative should be reworked to accurately reflect their relationship and to stop it from reading like a dime novel. Thanks for reading my thoughts. Reference: "Miracle: Bobby Allison and the Saga of the Alabama Gang" by Peter Golenbock, https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/miracle-peter-golenbock/1111508049Writer2022 (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, if you have concerns about the article on Diffie, it would best be posted at the article's talk page, where you can discuss it with other editors and seek a consensus. I only did some general edits on the page to cover news about his death; I'm not all that familiar with the article beyond that.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Penderecki
I'd like to understand your edit summary better. What do you mean by "there wasn't anything in this box anyway"? How is an IP user supposed to understand why their contribution was rejected? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could have been more clear; at deletion, | the IB had only the dates and places of birth and death and his nationality, almost all of which is information found in the lede anyway. It just seemed superfluous to include it.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, said user is now trying to edit-war with my removal, so I'm not sure what else I could have done here.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I also don't know. Let's assume that is a new user, how would s/he even know how to find an edit summary? I remember my first days on Wikipedia, when I added something, that was gone after a while, and I thought I had just made a mistake when saving, and did the same thing again. Some must have thought I was edit-warring ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I do agree that it's worth taking the extra effort to err on the side of more expansive/explanatory edit summaries whenever appropriate.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what I remember is when a user doesn't yet know that there is such a thing as article history, where edit summaries can be read. I have no idea what an IP editor receives when reverted. - Back to my first question, though, what do you mean by "... wasn't anything ...", when it looks pretty much like the community consensus found for Beethoven? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My point was that the only content in the Penderecki IB was/us the birth/death places and nationality—while that might be what the consensus for the IB on the Beethoven article is, my general understanding of an infobox is that it usually needs to have substantially more than just that, barring consensus to the contrary. Otherwise, why have one if it's just repeating everything seen in the lede (as articulated in the WP:DISINFOBOX essay)? I did not see the point of adding such a small infobox to the article, completely without consensus, when it had not had one before.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thyra Stevenson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Madrid ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Thyra_Stevenson check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Thyra_Stevenson?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
—— Serial # 17:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Ted Newsom
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits on this entry. Thank you. (2601:543:4380:3A10:6856:D66A:DF5A:22C (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC))
 * I fail to see what was "unconstructive" about my edits. The article has no inline citations anywhere—including reports of the subject's death—and per WP:BDP, BLP policy, which emphasizes not including any unsourced/poorly sourced information that could possibly be contentious and removing any which does exist, still applies to recently deceased persons.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The citations i.e. a death notice is pending. reverting the entire page as if Ted is alive is not the way to go. Also, his name wasn't 'Edward' though I am not sure you were the one who added that in. Did you know Ted personally? Ted wasn't at the level of fame where his death would be reported by national news outlets, so please bear that in mind. (Sellpink (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC))
 * Hello, I did not know this person, and I did not make the claim that his name was Edward. My entire history with this article was seeing it tagged on the Recent Deaths category and finding that it was entirely unsourced. It's simply not tenable to have an article claim a person has died without any sourcing at all. I don't fundamentally believe that edits to an article should precede reliable sources reporting that information. Wikipedia is not a primary source or a news outlet, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with waiting until some kind of source is published. (For the record, I do not believe my decision to revert was arbitrary: this is more anecdotal, but it has also been the standard operating procedure I've observed on other articles in which a person's death may have been known but was not yet reported on by reliable sources)--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The most recent edit requesting citation and noting that there are currently none seems like an appropriate compromise while the death notice is published. Thank you. (Sellpink (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC))

Cori Bush
Hi - I noticed you removed the "current election" template from this page. While the projections have been made and Bush is the definite winner, the results could still change until they're considered "official" by the Missouri Secretary of State. See here for the actual results page where it still says "Unofficial" for this race. Paradox society  17:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I should have said the numbers could change slightly. The result/outcome of the race won't change. Paradox  society  17:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Cicely Tyson
I didn't look very carefully and then I saw you had already added her memoir, but I put it under personal life while you put it under career. Would you agree to let it be moved to personal life?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to that, just as long as it's mentioned somewhere.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Allan Burns
This is the article I'm reading (the 1:52pm version – I hope you're reading the same one). Quoted directly: "Allan Burns, a television producer and screenwriter best known for cocreating and cowriting for the television sitcoms The Munsters, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and Rhoda, has died. He was 85 and no details were immediately available on the cause of death.". —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also looking at the the 1:52 article, and I have this: "Allan Burns, a television producer and screenwriter best known for cocreating and cowriting for the television sitcoms The Munsters, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and Rhoda, died Saturday at home. He was 85 and no details were immediately available on the cause of death." --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, just refreshed the page. My bad haha. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem!--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

2022 Connecticut Gubernatorial election
The Reason Jen Psaki was added as declined is because she was in a position mount a serious campaign for governor do to the fact that her Predecessors Predecessors is doing the exact same thingSnowycake (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the "declined" subsection is not merely a list of people who said they're not running, it's people who said they're not running in response to speculation that they might. No reliable sources, insofar as I can tell, ever seriously suggested that Jen Psaki was going to run for governor of Connecticut in 2022. She made that comment as a throwaway joke in response to SHS running for governor of Arkansas; she was not seriously responding to genuine speculation in the media that she was going to run for the office. That's why I removed her name from the article. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand and respect your opinion how ever she is prominent enough to run for governor if she chose Snowycake (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not saying she isn't prominent, but there was no serious speculation that she was going to—especially next year, with an incumbent governor from the same party eligible for re-election.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There may have been a little bit between the time huckabee announced and she declined Snowycake (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is, I'd personally recommend finding an example and citing it in that line of the article alongside her statement declining.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Guess what Karen I DID AS SOON AS I PUT IT IN Snowycake (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We're going around in circles here; I meant a source indicating that there was speculation alongside the source of her declining. We know she said she isn't running, my qualm has always been that I don't know if there was serious speculation to begin with.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Cliff Simon
Really you tagged as "problem sentences" due to "excessive citations" and you chose not to fix it yourself? 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being blunt, yes. It was late at night, I looked at the page, saw one-sentence claims tagged with the same five sources apiece, and I was honestly too tired at that point to make anything more than those edits. I can certainly have a look at it later, but it just wasn't practical for me to do so at that time.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to be difficult. I would like to trim this to your liking, but I don't know what standard (quantity or quality) you are applying. Or want? I don't want to cut too many or too few.  Or the wrong ones.  Trying to measure this — like equity and the "chancellor's foot" or the emperor's ear Die_Entführung_aus_dem_Serail — makes me queasy.  Any guidance would be appreciated.  Thank you.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's admittedly an imprecise standard on its own, but I think it just goes on a case-by-case basis: take the sentence "Simon quit after three years of intense training, due to his concerns that his social life was suffering," in the second paragraph of the early life section. It's followed by five citations. It just strikes me as unnecessary, and I think raises some questions. Do all five sources verify this claim? Are all five sources necessary to verify this claim? If we were to pare it down to one reliable source, would someone substantively challenge it as insufficient? The answer to all of these questions is, as far as I can tell, no. Now, the real challenge of it is that it requires looking through the sources with more scrutiny than I have given thus far, and determining the best way to cite each claim individually. I'd certainly be open to having a closer look myself, but at that time yesterday evening, I was not able to. That was my rationale behind the tag; it wasn't out of some secret, nefarious desire to run out the clock on the nomination. I just didn't think that the sourcing in those specific instances was quite up to the standard of what's necessary or preferable.--[[User:Sunshineisl]
 * Thanks for responding. Your answer wasn't.  I guess I will cut them down to one source on most of them, and you can peruse that, if you are so inclined.  Tagging without editing is one way to participate.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I cut back on the references. I noted you were editing there, too. I hope that helps. Thank you. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 20:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks good. I just did a few more edits myself. All of the sources were reliable (except for one claim that was sourced to the IMDb, though I was able to find a better replacement), and it looks like it was mostly just a matter of specifying which sources verify which claims.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to add you as an article improver at WP:ITN but somebody beat me to it. Thanks for getting on this.  I had worked very hard on this article, and it is frustrating when it just get ignored at ITN.  I have several horror stories there.  Neil Peart and Joe Cocker (I think, not sure) and Dr. John — there were others — all of which failed the ITN imagined 'tests' based on how prolific they had been (basically disregarding the overall shape of the article, and focusing on the fact that they had been so prolific, and every work didn't have a citation).  ITN has been habitually perverse; and I am largely gun shy.  I am not confident that this one will get through, either.  Cheers. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! VV 05:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jeanne Robertson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WRAL.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phil Murphy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WABC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cooper Raiff has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Cooper Raiff, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Cooper_Raiff help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Wgullyn ( talk ) 16:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

RE: Remove and Add Category for Everett Lee, Conductor
Editing Actions Requested on 1-30-22: 1.	“American emigrants to Sweden” is incorrect category for Everett Lee, conductor. This is inaccurate and misinformation. Lee worked frequently in the United States.

Carnegie Hall Digital Collections https://www.carnegiehall.org/About/History/Performance-History-Search?q=&dex=prod_PHS&pf=Everett%20Lee_ Lee needs to be removed from this category “American emigrants to Sweden.”

2.	Lee needs to be placed also into category of “Music director (opera).” Lee conducted over 100 opera performances. Reference: "Wheeling Born Maestro Celebrates 100th Birthday". www.archivingwheeling.org August 31, 2016 by Erin Rothenbuehler. Retrieved January 13, 2022

http://www.archivingwheeling.org/blog/happy100theverettlee?fbclid=IwAR3iuA7aCxQ6ygL6Kd5SeBbO2wnjHy6hgnU-eaCNwCvpL-xF3iuiF9bDMNY#:~:text=Everett%20Astor%20Lee%20was%20born,right%20here%20in%20Wheeling%2C%20WV

Discussion: There is a misperception and misunderstanding of where Lee worked. There is also a misunderstanding of his international profession as a conductor. Lee did not permanently leave the United States. At all times he was aligned with the United States. Lee frequently still worked in the United States and maintained strong ties. For example, he performed 16 times in New York City with the American Symphony, the Symphony of the World and Opera Ebony while at the same time he conducted the Norrkoping Symphony, Bogota Philharmonic and performed in other European concert halls. He frequently still worked in the United States. He did not permanently leave America. Lee was not an “immigrant” or “emigrant.” This is a misperception in the news. Everett Lee’s name needs to be removed from category “American emigrants to Sweden.” He was an international conductor. Lee’s profession as an international conductor caused him to be a “world traveler” similar to a State Department official like Blinken or Caroline Kennedy. Lee is a “world traveler” as an international conductor. Lee is not an “immigrant” or “emigrant.” Otherwise the term “emigrant” or “immigrant” would have to be placed describing all international conductors, such as Riccardo Muti, Yannick Nézet-Séguin or Jaap van Zweden, and these terms are not applied to these international conductors. I do not believe any other international conductor has been placed into an “emigrant” or “immigrant” category. Ettezoc243 (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've added him to the music directors (opera) category. As for the emigration category, I've moved him to the category "American expatriates in Sweden", which reflects that he lived there but did not permanently leave the United States. However, I would say that I don't think someone who does permanently move to another country couldn't still be considered an emigrant just because they occasionally returned to their home country. But I do agree that there's a lack of supporting evidence in the article to suggest the prior category.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

RE: Remove Category for Everett Lee, Conductor, American expatriates in Sweden
Editing Action Requested on 1-31-22: 1.	“American expatriates to Sweden” is incorrect category for Everett Lee, conductor. This category is inaccurate and misinformation. Lee was a lifelong Veteran of the United States Army. Lee worked frequently in the United States as an international conductor and Veteran patriot of the United States. “American expatriates to Sweden” is inaccurate term for Lee because Lee maintained lifelong military Veteran status, close American employment ties and close American family connections in the United States. Lee needs to be removed from this category.

References:

Cleveland Violinist Puts Aside Music For Pursuit Plane at Tuskegee Field" Cleveland” Call and Post, June 19, 1943. 10A.

"Tuskegee Airmen”, www.history.com, retrieved January 25, 2022.

Carnegie Hall Digital Collections https://www.carnegiehall.org/About/History/Performance-History-Search?q=&dex=prod_PHS&pf=Everett%20Lee_ Lee needs to be removed from this category “American emigrants to Sweden.” Ettezoc243 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He's out of the emigrants category. For your other question, far as I'm concerned, the common contemporary definition for an "expatriate" is just somebody from one country who has some kind of long-term, fixed residence in another. I don't think it implies someone who renounced any affiliation. You can be an American citizen and live in a different country, and remain an American citizen all throughout. I would say that Talk:Everett Lee is probably the best place to make the case for complete absence of either the expat or emigrant categories, to find out if a consensus can be made from a larger sample size of editors.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

RE: Reply on Everett Lee Conductor Category Removal American Expatriates in Sweden
Edit Request to Remove Category for Everett Lee, Conductor, American expatriates in Sweden

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary the term “expatriate” has a negative meaning. It can mean: Synonyms for expatriate Synonyms: Verb banish, deport, displace, exile, relegate, transport Synonyms: Noun deportee, émigré (also emigré), evacuee, exile, expat [chiefly British], refugee

None of these negative terms apply to the life and career of Everett Lee. I will take this discussion to senior editor.Ettezoc243 (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Expatriate as a verb could have negative connotations. Merriam-Webster's definition of it as a noun is simply "a person who lives in a foreign country", which has no negative connotations and is the context by which it is referred to in the categories. It's called "American expatriates in Sweden", not "Americans expatriated to Sweden". I for one do not see living in another country as a sign that one has any negative feelings towards their home country or that their achievements in their home countries are diminished by extension. Many people of distinguished stature in one country, including military veterans, have eventually lived in other countries, for long periods of time, and for various reasons. The American expatriates in Sweden category includes multiple other such examples. I included Lee in the expatriate/emigrant category because his New York Times obituary notes that he lived in Sweden at the time of his death, and further reading notes that he had a long professional history there.


 * Also, to clarify, Wikipedia does not have "senior editors" in terms of individuals who have editorial hierarchy over others; there is a classification called senior editor, but this is purely a designation for those with at least four years on the site who have made more than 24,000 edits. According to WP:SVC, "service awards do not indicate any level of authority whatsoever; "master" editors are not bestowed with more authority through this award than "novice" editors". There are administrators, but their role does not really expand on the level of standard editorial debate.


 * Therefore, if you would like to make the case for the category to be removed, seeking consensus on an article's talk page moves it from a one-on-one dialogue on a user talk page, and gives every editor a chance to voice their opinions on a matter so as many people as possible can participate in the making of a decision.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Sir Richard Shepherd
Hi, I noticed that earlier today you removed the "(death announced on this date)" note from Sir Richard Shepherd's entry on 21st February. His obituary from the Telegraph tonight confirms that he in fact died on 19th February. I think it's important that we don't remove announcement tags until we have confirmation of death dates from reliable sources, otherwise we're spreading misinformation. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I agree that the note should not be removed until a reliable source gives a date, and I believed I had one: I sourced it to The Guardian, which gave his death date as the 21st in its obituary, and actually still does as of now, even when the Telegraph is reporting differently.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed this, and yes that's certainly not your fault. Though it would still be helpful in future if you could cite the source in the edit summary on the recent deaths page when you make the changes. I think the Telegraph is the stronger source here as their obituary seems to suggest they had more insight from someone close to him, but I'll ping the Guardian an email asking them to clarify. As the Telegraph is paywalled, other editors will likely keep changing it back to 21st unless it is addressed. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. The thing that happened with that edit is that I switched out a source that did not give a date with a source that did, and also did the same with another listing for that day, so the edit summary was overly broad to cover both. I agree with you that the Telegraph is probably right on this, but since both it and the Guardian are reliable sources, I'm just giving equal weight to both on Shepherd's article for now pending a clarification.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Don Young
To be completely honest, I think that an infobox standalone portrait caption is unnecessary to begin with. I raised the issue on the MOS talk page a while back but I suppose it's beyond the point of any return at this point. Connormah (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I'd agree in most cases, upon giving this question some further thought. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Script issue
Just wanted to let you know that this diff did more than just tweak date formats, it removed an entire infobox. Please make sure that if you are using scripts to assist in editing, you ensure that you are not causing unintended problems. If you intended on removing the infobox, then please make sure your edit summary does not imply something else entirely. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe I recall removing the IB as a matter of editorial choice, so I neglected to mention that in the edit summary for whatever reason. Maybe I did it before I hit the script and it didn't show? Strange. Thanks for pointing this out. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please explain tags in Bob Graham talk
Please explain your citation needed tags in the talk:Bob Graham page. You questioned trivial facts like the names of his children. Your edits constitute tag bombing which says, "Adding tags to articles should be accompanied by sufficient reasoning on the tagged article's talk page." Timhowardriley (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * In hindsight, perhaps I did not need to add inline citations, since the WP:TAGBOMBING essay says that "There is no need to add [CN] tags to numerous unreferenced statements in an article when [unreferenced] or [refimprove] would state equivalent information". What do you want me to add on the talk page, though, that isn't in the tags? It's an article about a living person which has entire unreferenced paragraphs, about such subjects as what he did in office, awards in his honor, and books he authored.
 * And yes, the names of his children absolutely should be referenced: please see WP:BLPNAME, which says: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced".
 * If anything, all of the names except for Gwen Graham should be removed under that principle. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. Put this in the talk page. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanations. Now, the article is being improved. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Graham&diff=1080366849&oldid=1080365333 Timhowardriley (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:David Rubin has a new comment
<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:1em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;"> I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:David Rubin. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Rubin (film executive) has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> David Rubin (film executive), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=David_Rubin_(film_executive) help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)