User talk:WikiWikiWayne/Archive 12

Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Prince. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I second Softlavender's warning. Common practice is that legitimate redactions are marked in some way, e.g. [redacted by Rebbing]. But I doubt this was a legitimate case and, however disruptive the wording may have been, your edit warring was far more so. I've seen editors blocked for similar warring over far more offensive comments, so I hope you'll drop the stick. Thanks. Rebb ing  02:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, have you read WP:3RR lately? Rebb ing  02:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Thank you for stopping by and offering your opinions. Please read the BLP edit notice carefully [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_of_Prince&action=edit here] regarding disruptive edits relating to BLPs.


 * Also, please read the WP:TPO here regarding removing personal attacks and trolling on discussion pages.


 * Removing this material does not count as an R. Additionally, I opened a dialog to avoid an edit war. It was Softlavender that was warring and needed a disruptive editing warning. Softlavender did open dialog on the article talk page, but only after it was already in place on her talk page, and only after the whole matter was already moot. Cheers!  19:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is one remark in the disputed comment that I feel rises to the level of a personal attack. I've redacted that from the page. The other comment, while it may border on disruptive, does not rise the level of severity that it needs removed. I hope I don't need to take further administrative action here. —C.Fred (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The comment was about the nomination more that the nominator, and the word "crime" was clearly used as a figure of speech. Is it really worth getting blocked over a hyperbole? —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Purple Shower's statement received an unsolicited review by editor who has a Master's degree in English and she has concluded otherwise on all your statements about PR's statement. Please see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Softlavender&diff=716827587&oldid=716827277 this] (which was deleted without comment by ). Cheers!   19:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Checkingfax, I'm going to give you the opportunity to self-revert your last revert (of C.Fred's edit) before I file at WP:ANEW. As it is, I think C.Fred has more than ample cause to block you right now without my even filing. Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I know, "do the right thing", focus on contributions and not contributors. However, if you'd pointed out earlier on that the user who left the comment had been indefinitely blocked, then you'd have sent me down the path earlier of what else that editor had done. Given his history of personal attacks and his block, I have refactored his comment. I've also done so transparently, nothing where I've removed material, leaving as much in as possible while removing the attacks, and refactoring one comment to keep context. (How did I find out about the block? I was going to ask him to change the comment in the interest of everybody getting along.)—C.Fred (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Thank you. Cheers!  03:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you, Checkingfax, that those comments should be removed, not only because they were a personal attack but because the editor was a sockpuppet, I wanted to let you know that WP:TPG states that "All guidelines here also apply to Wikipedia discussion pages, such as articles for deletion" in the lead section of the page. For what it's worth, I only noticed it because I was looking to see whether TPG applied to non-talk pages where discussions occurred and if it wasn't for this remark, I wouldn't have thought they applied to pages in Wikipedia space. Liz  Read! Talk! 15:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Thank you for your support. I really appreciate it. While you are doing research, you may have missed this portion of the Talk page guidelines which I have highlighted for your convenience. Read on. Cheers!  18:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The guideline portion you highlighted says " Removing harmful posts  [in other words, entire posts, not portions of posts ], including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism" -- not altering posts. Altering other people's posts in any way except structurally inherently changes their meaning, and therefore it is not allowed. When people read a signed post by someone, the post needs to be that person's precise words, or else chaos would reign and no one would know what anyone else was saying or if they had actually written what their signature implies they wrote. People take posts at face value, both at the time and even years later if the page is looked at then. The guideline portion you highlighted also says "This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. " It also states " you should stop if there is any objection ." It also instructs to "leave a short explanatory note [on the page] such as '[possible libel removed by ~ ]'"; this is very important for reasons I mentioned above. Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Are you stating that personal attacks are to remain if they are encapsulated by salve?


 * I copy/pasted the Edit-Notice text in every edit.


 * The removed abusive text did not alter the meaning of the !vote one bit.


 * My highlight below highlights editing not the need to remove entire posts:
 * At the juncture I was at, it would have been inappropriate to remove Purple Shower's entire !vote. I notice you and Winkelvi are in a back-to-back matter at the 3RR/N already. Cheers!  03:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, nowhere does it say it is OK to remove part of a post, except "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright,  living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies", which does not apply here. It says it is sometimes OK to remove an entire post if it is a personal attack, trolling, or vandalism. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Wow. Cheers!  04:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Wow. Cheers!  04:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Others' comments
It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It may irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.

Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~]". Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

In the past, it was standard practice to "summarize" talk page comments, but this practice has fallen out of use. On regular wikis with no "talk" tab, the summary would end up as the final page content. Wikipedia has separate tabs for article content and discussion pages. Refactoring and archiving are still appropriate, but should be done with courtesy and reversed on protest.
 * Personal talk page cleanup: See the section § User talk pages for more details.
 * Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright,  living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies
 * Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial.  Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.
 * Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates collapse top and collapse bottom or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. This normally stops the off-topic discussion, while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page. It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above. Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion. Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution. The template rf can be used as well as to denote the original source page of the content.
 * Attributing unsigned comments: You are allowed to append attribution (which can be retrieved from the page history) to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it. This typically takes the form .  The template unsigned or one of its variants can be used to do this more explicitly:, which results in —Preceding unsigned comment added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs).  However, the attribution of signatures to recent unsigned comments is typically done by a bot.
 * Signature cleanup: If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information or some even simpler variant. Do not modify others' signatures for any other reason.  If the user's signature has a coding error in it, you will need to contact the editor to fix this in their preferences (but see "Fixing layout errors", below).
 * Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup, using and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation. Another helpful template is the Talk page Reflist, reflist-talk. The template should be placed after the discussion that includes the references, as it will include all references before the template.
 * Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a heading to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.
 * Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When a topic is split into two topics, rather than sub-sectioned, it is often useful for there to be a link from the new topic to the original and vice versa. A common way of doing this is noting the change at the [then-]end of the original thread, and adding an unobtrusive note under the new heading, e.g., . Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion to date and to preserve attribution. It is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments. Very long discussions may also be divided into sub-sections.
 * IDs: Where sectioning is not appropriate, adding anchor or anchord for deep linking.
 * Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant. In order to ensure links to the previous section heading (including automatically generated links in watchlists and histories) continue to work, one should use one of the following templates to anchor the old title: formerly, anchord, anchor. Link (or template) markup may be removed from section headings, but the link should be recreated at the first use of the term, or in a hatnote.
 * Removing duplicate sections: Where an editor has inadvertently saved the same new section or comment twice. Note: this does not mean people who repeat a point deliberately.
 * Disambiguating or fixing links, if the linked-to page has moved, a talk page section has been archived, the link is simply broken by a typographical error, etc. Do not change links in others' posts to go to entirely different pages. If in doubt, ask the editor in question to update their own post, or add a follow-up comment of your own suggesting the alternative link. Only fix a link to a template that has been replaced or deprecated if the effect of the new template is essentially the same as what the poster used (otherwise, simply allow the post to red link to the old template, as a broken post is preferable to one with altered meaning). Internal links made using full URLs may be converted to wikilinks or protocol-relative URLs (by dropping the part before the "//"), so that they will work across protocols ( http:// vs. https:// ) and between our desktop and mobile sites.
 * Hiding or resizing images: You may hide an image (e.g., change  to   by adding a colon) once discussion of it has ended. This is especially appropriate for "warning" and "alert" icons included in bot-posted notices which are usually quickly resolved.  Another common and acceptable image-related edit is re-sizing images that were posted in full size and take up too much room on the talk page.
 * Deactivating templates, categories, and interlanguage links: You may prevent templates from being transcluded (e.g., change to ) if the poster clearly intended to discuss the template rather than use it. You may deactivate category links (e.g., change   to   by inserting a colon) to prevent the page being inappropriately added to a discussed category. You may deactivate interlanguage links (e.g., change   to   by inserting a colon) when the link to a page on another language's Wikipedia is meant to appear inline rather than to serve as an interlanguage link for the page.
 * Hiding old code samples: You may redact (replace with a note, or collapse) large code samples once discussion of the sample has ended; for instance fulfilled edit protected requests.
 * Review pages: Peer reviews, good article reviews, and featured article candidates are collaborative processes in which a reviewer may provide a list of comments on an article; most editors expect the responses to be interspersed among these comments. An example is here; note that you should not modify the comments themselves in any way.
 * If you have their permission.
 * Removing or striking through support/oppose comments of editors subsequently blocked as socks. Comments with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. Striking through with a short explanation immediately after the stricken text is done when other editors have replied to the comments. e.g. Support per nom. (Striking !vote by blocked sock.)

Use of obituaries as RS
Hi  In the AfD discussion    and I are having regarding the Robert Buntine article, can you please advise us as to how obituaries are viewed as reliable sources when published in mainstream publications? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Picomtn. Obituaries must follow a MoS for the publication they are in but they are generally written by somebody close to the subject and there is no fact checking. As long as the MoS is followed, and the huge publication fee is paid (huge if a mainstream publication), the obit is published without question or editing. They are only edited for MoS, or for using prohibited language. Obits are a good starting place to get some ideas for an article, but then you need to find some solid sources to back them up, or only include things that are non-controversial or unlikely to be challenged. If you say "Maya Angelou was a poet" or "Richard Nixon was a president" you probably will not be challenged on it. If something is challenged, then it must be cited. WP only requires verifiability. Citations are optional as needed to bolster. As of late, anything you say in a BLP is challenged. For dead people there is supposed to be some slack on that. Cheers!  14:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll take that with guacamole.
See edit to Enceladus. Read the edit summary. – Corinne (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

– Corinne (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . That is funny. Hardly an autocorrect issue. Cheers!  01:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

M. S. Ramaiah
Hi Can you please review the M. S. Ramaiah article and give your thoughts on same? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, . You do not have to ping me when you are on my talk page. Pings to talk page owners are automatic. No harm, no foul, it is just unnecessary.


 * Ramaiah's article has eight sections and only one inline citation. I started adding section tags but then realized the page banner was the appropriate tag, whereas usually they are not.


 * The article had a gillion mentions of M. S. referring to him as M S
 * Was this intentional? I changed them all to M. S. and it was a bit tedious. I have never seen anybody referred to like that. Was it some kind of well known personal branding?


 * FYI, the MoS for initials is to put a full stop after the initial, and a non-breaking space between the initials (so those still need to be added). A handy template for that is: (easy to remember) n-on b-reaking sp-ace is the mnemonic.


 * A caveat: If the person wants to be known by M.S. (no spaces) then we refer to them as M.S. (no spaces).


 * In my opinion, parentheticals, especially in the lead, are non-encyclopedic. Try unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes (once you pick a style, stick with it throughout the article—‌both styles are MoS compliant—‌if you stick to one throughout). For date ranges, use en dash, but for date ranges with spaces in them use a spaced en dash. You can use commas, and then break it up with em or en dashes to get your point across, or you can always wikilink off to an article about the term if explaining it makes a run-on sentence. Templates for en dash and em dash are: (no space),  (space en dash space), and  (no-space, em dash, no-space). They are easy to remember once you start using them, but easy to mistype, so be careful and preview your work.


 * I would suggest you install the DYKCheck user JavaScript in your common.js page so you can check articles for DYK eligibility as you go along (the link is red because you have not added any JavaScripts to it yet). Installing JavaScripts are easily done and easy to remove if they cause problems. Also, for BLPs that totally lack citations you only have to do a 2x expansion without 7-days (and add citations) to qualify a DYK nomination. DYK gets the article on the main page and page views will spike and hopefully result in a long-term trending up which is a good thing if you want exposure for the article. I think the record is 350,000 page views in one day for swimming baby. Cheers!  16:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you so much for reviewing and working on this article, and as you can see, it's quite a subject of a notable person who has established many institutions, but whose exact bio is nearly impossible to track down. Is their a way to get for this article from someone familiar with India, and the language, who can help with this? And, thank you too for the DYK info, which is, I'm afraid to admit, way too advanced for me to comprehend at this time. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Look up editors and, but India is a huge and diverse country. Cheers!   12:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Lambu
Hi. Can you please review the Mr. Lambu article and AfD to tell me what I'm missing? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Lambu to GAN
Hi. I was wondering if you could help me in getting Mr. Lambu nominated for good article status that suggests may be possible. As you well know, I'm not experienced enough to do this by myself, but, and also you know this, I work very hard to protect and improve articles that have been, or currently are, being picked on. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again, . It is not difficult to understand the GA criteria. There are six points here:
 * Firstly expand the article as far as possible, it should be quite broad in coverage, and not necessarily long. This article is difficult, though, unless you have access to more sources for expansion.
 * Secondly, make sure everything is supported by a good number of credible, inline citations.
 * Thirdly, the prose should be of good if not professional quality, and comply with the WP:MOS guidelines as far as possible.
 * Fourthly, try to illustrate the article with properly licensed, suitable images (if there are none available, this criterion may be ignored).
 * Fifthly, it should be stable and not subject to edit wars (at the moment Mr. Lambu does not satisfy this given the open AfD).
 * Finally, the article must be neutral with no bias or flowery language that could be promotional.
 * If any article satisfies all these criteria, it can be promoted as a GA. See WP:GA and WP:WIAGA for more details. Cheers, Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 12:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you so much for this great guidance, but, and sadly, (and as can well attest to) my age, particularly my eyesight, are serious impediments to my fully comprehending many WP guidelines and policies. And, the NPOV style of writing here that, as you know, is expository as opposed to my over 40 years of persuasive and narrative writing/teaching experience too. Maybe even more importantly about me, too, as to why I'm not the best person to nominate anything here is my complete disgust with those who nominate articles for deletion leaving people like me to do the work they should have done in the first place. So, and in essence, I'll never be master editor here, or anything other than what I am now, a simple person who will ALWAYS defend something that is being picked on. I hope you understand. PS If WP had more people like you and Checkingfax this would be a much better place. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, (with cc to ) and . To nominate an article for GA, you do not need to be a great editor, but you must have resources to back you up for help to address any shortcomings in the article.  is another editor who is skilled at bringing articles to DYK, Good, and Featured Article statuses. Maybe he would share some of his secret sauce with you. Cheers!   19:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

19:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jozef Raskin
Gatoclass (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Latin music project!
Hello Checkingfax! I noticed that you added yourself to the list of the Latin music project members and just personally wanted to welcome to the Latin music project! Erick (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner
Hello Checkingfax:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Caitlyn Jenner has been completed. There are a few TV show mentions I could not cite with decent citations. Some of the car racing statements I also couldn't cite after a quick look. Otherwise the article is completely cited.

Somebody should spend time archiving the URLs so that the article doesn't develop "dead" links.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Thank you very much for our efforts. I really appreciate it. Did you put tags in the spots where citation. are needed?


 * Actually the car racing section is fine. I have added tags to the TV show mentions. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the cup of tea!! Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 19:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Laucke
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

TAFI
Hi, I have reviewed your nom at Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. If you want to, please take a look at my noms as well. Thanks. :)--BabbaQ (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . OK, done. Cheers!  09:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
Hello, I'm TJH2018. I noticed that you recently removed some content without adequately 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. TJH2018 talk  16:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . The first time did not allow an edit summary, so I self-reverted that one and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sorcha_Faal_reports&diff=719921211&oldid=719921058 added an edit summary]. Cheers!  16:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Have a great day! TJH2018  talk  18:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorcha Faal
Have you checked the specific problems mentioned? I know that even reliable sources are being misrepresented, I checked them. And that there has been original research - I think we have a good faith editor there, although somewhat conspiracy minded perhaps given what they've said on the talk page, but they don't understand how we work. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Missed the bit on her talk page about vultures. Doug Weller  talk 17:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Yes, I believe dropped the   word once too many times in that piece. LOL. The article was stable and we were making slow, steady progress on it, before this major slash and burn. The guideline for BLPs (all which are under discretionary sanctions) is to be careful (vs the customary be bold). A few folks discussing edits for less than 12 hours is not consensus. The editor should have read the talk page first. David Gerard received a DS/A-blp less than 12-months ago. He is the Yin to Picomtn's Yang. I would appreciate it if you would do a revert of the major edit under the status quo ante bellum custom. Then we can kick it around on the talk page like we have been doing previously. Cheers!   17:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I gave her a lot of help, spent time I didn't have. But I think you can argue that if there are doubts about the content of a BLP then reverting it is being careful, leaving dubious content in is not being careful. I can't possibly reinstate badly sourced content, etc. after making it clear how I feel about it. Doug Weller  talk 17:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I appreciate all the help you have given . We need to keep on doing it.


 * Hey, I made some MOS and namestyle improvements to the status quo like changing Washington Post (Roman, no "The") to The Washington Post (italics), and various other sundry MOS and namestyle enhancements. An editor has just reverted all of them shotgun style citing that s/he was sticking up for [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sorcha_Faal_reports&diff=prev&oldid=719945174 "your version"].


 * Can you please revert [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sorcha_Faal_reports&diff=719945287&oldid=719937570 these changes]? I am only at 2RR but I do not like to pour gasoline on a fire, so it would be better for you to do it. Cheers!  20:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did this myself, hope that's ok. I think that last revert was just a misunderstanding, don't see how anyone could object to your improvements. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Thank you. Cheers!  20:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing here for me to do, anyway I don't have time to get too involved here in the detail. Doug Weller  talk 10:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Here is the information that they wanted deleted from the article as dichotomies such as this are never allowed to survive. Maybe in the future you'll be able to get it put back in:

In 2016, Russian newspaper Trud claimed that Faal was affiliated with foreign intelligence services:

In 2016, Russian channel REN TV alleged, without offering proof, that Sorcha Faal was a portal for unnamed intelligence services.

Concerns that Faal was in some way affiliated with the U.S. government were first raised in 2009 by the conservative political advocacy organization Americans for Limited Government when they posted on their website a Freedom of Information Act reply from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that stated 10Faal articles had been used by the DHS in compiling their controversial report titled Right-wing Extremism Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.


 * In 2016, a Faal report alleging that two U.S. military helicopters were shot down by Turkey over Syria was widely reported by mainstream Russia media sources including Свободная пресса—‌Википедия and Trud with the Sputnik news agency (in their German language edition) reporting that the United States Department of Defense denied this happened with Pentagon spokeswoman Michelle Baldanza stating "This is an absolute lie" and Trud still commenting on it a subsequent article about Turkey.

Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

several early editors
"...several early editors demanded citations". Were they holding a GA nom hostage or something? Right now would be a very good time to commence the process of ignoring their advice and deleting pointless citations, IMO (again, unless your concern is linkrot). Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . No, it was way before the GA review. It was back when the article came out of Draft and into article space if I recall correctly, or maybe even it was in Draft or user space. At this juncture I am hazy. I just know they were ornery and demanding. is using Notes to combine the refs into singles. Natalie is the uber main researcher so I will leave it to her to decide which ones to prune out. Cheers!   02:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * PS: . Your custom sig has a typo it in that makes your talk page link a redlink:
 * &amp;nbsp; Lingzhi&amp;nbsp;&amp;diams;&amp;nbsp;(talk)


 * Should be: &amp;nbsp; Lingzhi&amp;nbsp;&amp;diams;&amp;nbsp;(talk) Cheers!  02:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, look at your talk page history. Your edit somehow changed that Lingzhi to a singzhi (only on this page)... As for the blue sea, don't worry, I won't oppose the FAC nom because of it, but while Natalie is working, she could perhaps quietly forget to add some of the relatively less needed links. And so on. They are a bit of an annoyance. But they are certainly not deal-killers.  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In theory, and I'm just speculating, it might be somewhat near time to archive your talk page. ;-) Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

AFD links
Hi Checkingfax. On Talk:Sorcha Faal, the AFD template at the top was broken and the links weren't working. According to Old AfD multi, the "page" parameter takes the name of the AfD page and automatically links to the discussion. The "link" parameter also works, but needs the full URL to a discussion, not just a wikilink. The link parameter is preferred when linking to somewhere other than AfD. clpo13(talk) 22:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Thank you for fixing it twice. Cheers!  22:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/History of the New York Yankees/archive1
Replied to your comment at the FAC. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 15:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Norodom Sihanouk
Hi there, I have nominated the above article for FAC, a biographical article about a late Cambodian monarch and Cold War figure. I have received feedback from the FAC that the article's prose has issues. I have done several rounds of proofreading and CE on my part, and right now I think a second pair of eyes to spot any problematic areas, if any. I welcome you to take a look at the article, and feel free to give any comments on the prose, content etc - on any areas that may need improvement from your perspective. (The FAC page is at Featured article candidates/Norodom Sihanouk/archive1). Pleased do not feel obliged if you are unable to do so, though it would be great if you can let me know about your decision on whether you can assist. Thanks in advance! Mr Tan (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . OK, done. If you are lucky, will step in and tighten up the prose with one of her spot-on copy-edit sessions. I fixed other stuff for you. Good luck. Cheers!   01:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate your efforts very much (Y). Hope to see you and Corinne around Mr Tan (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 *  I'd be happy to take a look at the article, but I prefer if you submit a request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. There is no need to specify a particular copy-editor. All the copy-editors are good. If I see it and am not working on another article, I'll accept the assignment. – Corinne (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Submitted - I was initially hesitant to submit a request, as I had submitted requests to the CE guild, and had been overlooked thrice in the past. It's not so much about the specific editor that I am concerned with, but rather the issue of catching the attention of a willing editor. This article had been sent to Peer Review twice, and I failed to procure any meaningful responses to improve the article. On my side, I'm currently looking through Casliber's suggestions, which takes time. It"ll definitely be very great and nice if you can give a special consideration to take a look at this article.. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Use of templates
I explained myself in my edit summary. If you disagree, you should take that to the talk page and explain why you disagree. Templating users for what are obviously good faith edits is a sanctionable lack of civility, and given your previous dishonestly, I am less averse to asking an admin to take a look at your behavior than I usually am. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  15:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

About the arbcom case...
Just to avoid cluttering the arbcom case...you opened by writing: "This situation is under BLP Discretionary Sanctions and is therefore exempt to other preliminary means of resolution." This is not true, at all. All WP:DR methods are always open to everyone, from simply talking to people, to getting third opinions, to mediation, to the various notice boards, including ANI. What DS does allow, is for you to take a case to WP:AE (see the pink box at the top of that page). Arbcom was not necessary - far from it. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A follow up note, now that the case has been formally declined and archived. The fact that you cited things I did and had not once said anything to me about that, is in my view terrible, and in my view your participation in that process has lost you a ton of credibility. I don't want to interact with you but you might want to think about apologizing to others. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I did not initiate the case. I did not make any false claims; I only made statements, supported by Diffs; I followed the instructions closely. Cheers!  15:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert Buntine
Any suggestions how this bio can be saved with so much misinformation being included by deletionists? Castlemate (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I see what you mean. Has there be any traction in the last six weeks towards keeping the article? Cheers!  02:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me but I fear it is a lost battle. Increasingly consensus seems to be Delete and I'm thinking the best I can do is create Buntine Family to recognise three generations of an Australian family to lead independent schools and youth organisations. Bob's mother and father seem to be safe as his father played some Aussie Rules even if as a headmaster he would be deleted but his mother has an ADB biography. His grandfather also has an ADB bio so he will start it off and be notable. If you can help in any way I would really appreciate it. Castlemate (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . OK, hit me back when you are ready. Cheers!  17:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

ACC request
Mlpearc ( open channel ) 15:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caitlyn Jenner
The article Caitlyn Jenner you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Caitlyn Jenner 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Grazie!
Thank you for your great support Checkingfax! Grazie, --Kenzia (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Checkingfax, a very special GRAZIE for all your encouragement and support! :) --Kenzia (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD and Christina Grimmie
Hey, Checkingfax!

You appear to be sticking with some unnecessary literalism to "Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient." While this much is "usually" true, it's also worth noting that a one-sentence paragraph would not survive a theoretical GAN. Also, your rewrite keeps changing the specifics that, according to all our reliable sources, she died the following morning. &#128406; ATS /  Talk  01:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . All the lead needs to say, if anything, is that she died. The lead already starts out saying she was, includes her death date, and the infobox includes it too. Details are found in the Death section. There is no strong need to mention her death at all in the lead. Creating a single sentence is a compromise. Cheers!
 * If so, that sentence must make more clear that she died the next day, despite that date being in the first graf, or it becomes confusing. You should remember, though, that if the article ever came up for GAN, a reviewer would make two sentences all but mandatory. I've been through it several times. &#128406; ATS  /  Talk  01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for another revert, but MOS:COMMA bullet 4 is clear. *embarrassed grin* &#128406; ATS /  Talk  01:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That's specific to the date, BTW; the other removal leaves "the night before following a concert" which changes its meaning. &#128406; ATS /  Talk  01:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . ... "the night before following a concert" ...
 * "a concert"? Whose concert? Cheers!  01:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * &#42;snerk* ... you&#39;re the one who wants one sentence. Okay, seriously, I'll look at it again. &#128406; ATS  /  Talk  02:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . OK, you got me about comma #1 but I disagree that there is a need for [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Grimmie&oldid=prev&diff=724869154 comma #2] which to me just introduces an unnatural pause. Nobody talks like that. Cheers! (cc to ).  02:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It has to be, if it stays that way. That said, I'm still looking at it and trying to come up with something better. Probably in a few more seconds ... &#128406; ATS /  Talk  02:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

HMS Emerald (1795)
Hi Checkingfax, You were kind enough to leave some comments at Featured article candidates/HMS Emerald (1795)/archive1 which I hope I have now redressed. Do you have anything else to add? I have notified some editors with appropriate expertise and who have participated in similar discussions before, so hopefully my nomination will be getting some more input soon. It is however sliding down the list so I was hoping you could add your support before it disappears into the archives. If you don't feel you can support it, don't worry, there won't be any hard feelings. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"C" class versus "start" class
In this edit, you changed the WikiProject assessments from "C" class to "start" class. Was that intentional, and if so, what was the basis? (Also, if this was intentional, it would be appreciated if in the future you mention the assessment change in your edit summary.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . It was nowhere near class=C when I correctly downgraded it to class=Start.


 * In fast moving articles we are light on edit summaries to avoid edit conflicts. Cheers!  00:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Cochrane, etc
Please, if you're not willing to engage with me, step away from the articles. Not only, now, are you changing my citation style (in some cases, but not others; compare Linzey and Linzey 2014), and declaring good DOIs as broken, but you're introducing silly errors. Note the link to O'Sullivan appearing on Cochrane's name and the link to Milligan appearing on Cooke's name, and the link to Political Animals and Animal Politics appearing in an article title (and thus breaking link). These changes, which I've no doubt are being made in good faith, are controversial, and are damaging the article. Your changes are now holding up the review, as I'm having to wait for an increasingly unlikely explanation as to why I shouldn't just revert you. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And you've added back a JSTOR link which I have removed; it's redundant to the DOI. I'm willing to bet that there are other issues I have missed. Again: the changes you are making are not nearly as uncontroversial as you think they are, and, due to the fact that others are having to clean up after you, you are creating work and causing bad feeling. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Please copy the above over to the thread on your talk page and we can pick it up there. Cheers!  13:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Copied across... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to explain why you are mistaken. You have now chosen to disengage on the grounds that I am not being "collaborative" or "civil", and that I am "belittling" you. This, of course, is untrue; you are clearly very uncomfortable with being told that you are mistaken, and would rather make vague accusations of wrongdoing. I wish you had chosen to disengage earlier, but, instead, you have wasted many hours of my time as I tried (in vain) to explain to you that you are confused. I will put this very simply. Changing citation styles without discussion is against our guidelines. You did this. As I have explained many, many times. Edit warring to keep your preferred citation style is the kind of behaviour which gets people blocked. You have displayed that, on a very fundamental level, you simply do not understand what a citation style is, and, while you display such a fundamental misunderstanding of this, you should not be making large-scale changes of citations. You do not have to reply, but I am cross-posting this on your talk page so that there is a clear record that you have been made aware of these issues. The reason I am doing this is because if you continue with your disruptive editing (and no, that's not me being "uncivil" or "belittling", or refusing to collaborate), you may well face blocks. The following policies/guidelines are particularly relevant: WP:CITEVAR (which you have violated by repeatedly changing my citation style without any discussion) and WP:IDHT (which you have violated by failing to show any understanding of the problematic nature of your edits). Josh Milburn (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Orlando shooting article
May I know how I was ""? I've gone over my edit history and am lost as to how you reached that opinion. If there's something specific I should avoid in the future, I'd like to know. TIA. &#128406; ATS /  Talk  21:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I apologize. I got the two Orlando attacks mixed up. My bad. I will strike that from the other page. Cheers!  22:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Very kind. Anything else of which you think I should be mindful? Cheers! &#128406; ATS /  Talk  22:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . No hay nada. Cheers!  14:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jacky Lafon
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

imdb
In a Teahouse response, you said "all" imdb content is user submitted. Although I did it myself once, I think cast and crew do have to come from official sources and can be considered more reliable than the other content that users do submit. I am one of those users. In the case of the cast and crew, I did find what I believed to be reliable sources, but I found it surprising that they said if the information was missing, go ahead and do it myself. The resulting list was a holy mess. That part wasn't my fault.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Some IMDB content can be submitted by the two branches of the Writers Guild of America, both of which are professional organisations with a good reputation for being factually correct, and they tag the content as such. However, by and large, the safest guideline to use for citing IMDB is - don't. A frequent problem is struggling actors create an IMDB page for themselves, then create a Wikipedia article about themselves using the page as a source. It never ends well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, and . Thank you. My wording was a bit clumsy even in my 2nd go-around. I am sure the WGA submissions pass muster much easier. The main point is that all content is submitted then reviewed before posting, except those few exceptions I mentioned. There is no direct posting of important stuff by anybody. The unimportant stuff is subject to their terms of use and site conditions. Cheers!   01:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you use this?
Some of us watchers thought you'd might be able to use this, more to come in future. Keep fighting the good fight, it does make a difference.

Putin's Army Of Internet Trolls Is Influencing The Hillary Clinton Email Scandal

"Contrary to the Russian media silence, the U.S. media began buzzing with the May 6 publication on an obscure conspiracy-oriented website (whatdoesitmean.com) entitled 'Kremlin War Erupts over Release of Top Secret Hillary Clinton Emails.' The article, written under the exotic pseudonym of Sorcha Faal, claims that a faction within the Kremlin wants Hillary’s email cache released. Fox News pundits (Sean Hannity and Judge Anthony Napolitano) cited the article as evidence that Putin has the Clinton emails."


 * Hi, OK. I will post it someday and see if it sticks. Cheers!   01:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos
Pincrete undid your edits. Imeldific (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Editor restored my edits but not yours. I am so sorry. How is it going over there? Ping me when you need me to comment further or !vote on the Featured Article promotion of Imelda Marcos article. Can you find a buffer to bounce your edit ideas off of before you implement them? Cheers!   02:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)