Unfortunately, none of the cited sources (available to view online) say that the father has any Native American ancestry. They say he has a Native American name (you get one of those, pretty much as a matter of course, when you're a practicing shaman) and one says he moved "back to America" after the divorce, but that doesn't say anything about his ethnicity. His parents could be from Brooklyn. Dwpaul Talk 00:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The SAP SE template on the Bill McDermott article mentions Board members. It has a typo: "Luca Mucic" should be "Luka Mucic". Is it possible for you to make this minor yet important edit? In addition, the Executive Board also includes Michael Kleinemeier, who is not mentioned here. Thank you for any help/guidance on this! Harper70 ( talk) 17:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Harper70 Done
The Recent Changes Barnstar | ||
This is for sending me all those nice thank you notes. Asarelah ( talk) 14:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC) |
Not sure why my edit on the June 2 page concerning Gary Bettman was reverted. He is far and away best known as the commissioner of the National Hockey League -- simply calling him an "American businessman" is unnecessarily vague. 209.90.140.72 ( talk) 00:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I am getting pushback on this change, which is required by the gender-identity provision of MOS:IDENTITY, even though it is common sense and compassionate. If you could watchlist even a small portion of my recent contributions, help keeping it real would be appreciated. Skyerise ( talk) 22:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I've pretty much had it too. [1] I'm going to the administrators' noticeboard in a couple of days - if he doesn't get blocked sooner. GregorB ( talk) 16:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I was just trying to help. I don't know what was wrong with that? Sry :/ -- Tuvixer ( talk) 19:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvixer: Nothing. I appreciate it. I said so on the article talkpage. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I have revised the article as most sources indicate that Anne may never have suspected that her husband led a double life and that the revelation of the DNA evidence was only released after her death. Perhaps you were right that the section needs to be excised or at the very least pruned and put into context. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 23:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll be back to finish adding references this evening. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for plastering Alec Hurley in ref needed tags which visually improved the article no-end. Suffice to say I have reverted the {{cn}} tags as they are not needed for lead sections as per WP:LEAD. Cheers Cassianto Talk 16:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but
here isn't it unclear whether you are speaking to Skyerise or Crazyseiko? Thanks.
Sundayclose (
talk) 15:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I went digging around the BAFTA site and all I've been able to find is a 2009 summary that references the original 1962 BAFTA Journal article "The Making of Lawrence of Arabia" but does not link to the actual content. VERY frustrating. The inference from the dead link is that it's available in a digitised form but so far no luck... will poke around later this week and see if I can find the linkage or the content. Shearonink ( talk) 05:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You had tagged the Jiang Zemin article with a neutrality tag - I agree the article is a big mess at the moment, but could you please tell me what specific aspects of the article are not neutral so we can work together on improving it? Thank you. Colipon+( Talk) 14:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bridgid Coulter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgid Coulter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel ( talk) 03:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Re this edit; my understanding is that you consider this an invalid reflink? MyTuppence ( talk) 15:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey there. I noticed you deleted a lot of paragraph breaks that existed on the Marva Collins page. I'm working on this as a work in progress, have a bunch of citations that I am culling information from to make her entry more robust, so ideally eventually the paragraphs will be fuller and the page will be more representative of Collins' work. I also wasn't finished adding to the infobox. So while I appreciate the copy-editing, it's a bit premature. If you could give me a bit of time to continue working on the article before making these types of edits, I'd really appreciate it. BrillLyle ( talk) 21:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure we should remove {{ persondata}} without verifying if data is correct on Wikidata? I only remove it after checking Wikidata. SLBedit ( talk) 12:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
It's all right to remove deprecated persondata templates at this time per a recent RfC. If someone needs to verify or compare anything, they can go into edit history. I just noticed that it was restored on A. J. Foyt IV, and I see no reason for having done that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Why do you remove redlinked cast members from articles? Looking at what links here for Jack Cheatham from the Shanghaied Love article shows at least half a dozen other WP articles linking to it, including this list of most requested actors. Even if he only had one acting credit, the best thing would be to de-link the entry, rather than removing them from the cast list. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your Dutch! There's no hostility. I placed the "purpose of Wikipedia talk pages" on the Piper talk page not for you, but for conspiracy theorists, cabalists or whatever that may read the CDAPress article, think Wikipedia talk pages would make an excellent forum for their detailed theories about Piper's life and death, and have a destabilizing influence on the article content. I was thinking about the (somewhat larger) GamerGate precedent, where indeed on discussion forums the word got round that Wikipedia is the place to be for pushing a view on what "really happened" dragging from one problematic situation to another... So no, not for you the message I tried to convey. Sorry if I gave that impression. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
After tagging the article for major issues and notability (not to speak of WP:COI) could you kindly give an outline of the problems you perceive there under these headings on that article's talk page? Thanks in anticipation. Nishidani ( talk) 19:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi RMS125a, since you seem to have an interest in the Bill McDermott article, I was wondering if you might have a few minutes to review the citations I'd like to add to the article on Hasso Plattner. Citations have been missing for some time. Also, it'd be great to mention the new book he wrote on SAP HANA. Any help would be hugely appreciated!! Harper70 ( talk) 13:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Harper70
Please have a look at the edits I have just made to Louise Makin. I realize that Wikipedia has a dizzying array of policies, but an editor of your experience ought really to be more familiar with policies such as WP:CREDENTIAL, MOS:JOBTITLES and WP:BLP. I've done a lot of work on biographies, and there is always more to learn. Edwardx ( talk) 09:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you please use the current project banner {{ WikiProject Ireland}} instead of the old redirect banner {{ WP Ireland}}. I updated Killygordon. Thanks for assessing. ww2censor ( talk) 10:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
How is she an adventurer? I don't see anything venturesome in the article. Also, patriot is WP:POV wording. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi RMS125a, I quickly wanted to question your decision to delete the above article for being non-notable? CVS is a well established business with offices across the UK and employs over 200 people. It has helped companies such as Aston Martin and Costa Coffee to save money on their business rates. CVS is one of the only companies of its type in the UK and as such has featured on the BBC, Telegraph, Independent and Property Week. I feel you decision to sum it up as non-notable is slightly unfair. I am keen to abide by the wikipedia guidelines and make sure all copy is neutral and supported by correct citations. Do you see a possibility of creating a page successfully? Thanks, Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Tide ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I had to edit without logging in yesterday on my home computer (see [3]), just in case anyone notices my editing style and wonders what's up. How to explain. Well my keyboard is dead and the new one is not coming to Staples for me to pick up until at least October 22 (Thursday). But I couldn't stay away and managed to be able to do some editing without the keyboard by using bookmarks, copy/paste and notepad. OMG. I felt like Helen Keller in The Miracle Worker (or maybe it was Anne Sullivan Macy, who wasn't in the greatest shape herself). Anyway, I felt like one of them. It's a weird feeling. I am at the library now, so. Quis separabit? 18:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for thanking me so much. It's honestly quite cheering (like this kitten), but not spammy.
I dream of horses If you reply here, please
ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (
talk to me) (
My edits) @ 03:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Changing "most of his remaining years" to "remaining ears"? Hmmm. How many ears did he have? Bishonen | talk 13:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
YVW. It's nice to be appreciated. Manytexts ( talk) 08:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up; I think Arthur (with whom I've edited with quite a bit, and who I genuinely like and respect) is just being a little cranky here, and may have just entirely missed that there was an ongoing discussion (which would explain why he broke off a new talk page section). I babysit a few policy pages myself and your first instinct often becomes to protect the baby despite whatever else is going on. I do have a bit of a reputation as a free-wheeling zealot (if that's not an oxymoron), so I can't blame him for even more of a Pavlov response when seeing my name come up in the edit summary. :) -- Kendrick7 talk 02:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of state visits to Iran#improve. Thanks. Shahin ( talk) 09:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
With regard to the Gian Maria Volontè article and its categories, and with the greatest respect, I don't understand how you don't understand the difference between a disease and an injury. A heart attack simply is not a disease, not by the Wiktionary definition of disease (or any number of more reliable sources) and not by any number of sources' definitions of heart attack, one of which I cited and even quoted in my comment specifically for your benefit. If you can cite a more reliable source to the contrary, then you should do so on the article's Talk page. I understand that cardiovascular disease is a disease, but I cannot find a single source that indicates Volontè had cardiovascular disease (aside from references to Wikipedia, of course, thanks to the inaccurate category added in error), and it certainly isn't the sole cause for a heart attack. You're making an assumption, you're not citing any sources, and it comes across as being unreasonably protective of the page for reasons unknown to me. I'm going to remove the category one more time, and I hope you'll keep in mind the rules regarding multiple reversions and original research; you've certainly been around long enough to be familiar with these. I've posted this comment here to bring it to your attention, but if you'd like to discuss further, it should probably be on the article's Talk page. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. B.Rossow · talk 14:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted one of my edits on the days of the year because I described a woman as a "Pubelo potter." Is there a better way of handling that? (I realize that I could call her American, but that seems to erase her identity as a Native American woman.) Or is your concern with the fact that the Puebloan peoples are very heterogeneous and it would better to specify the specific pueblo? Thanks. Katya ( talk) 16:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
*[[Vera Chino]], [[Acoma Pueblo]] (Native American) potter.
Quis separabit? 16:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Katya: Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 17:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
As I've mentioned several times before, please do not remove the "budget" and "gross" parameters from film article infoboxes, even if they are blank. This is information which, even if we don't have it now, it is quite possible we might have in the future. This is not the same as, say, the "narrator" parameter: either a film has a narrator or it doesn't, but every film had a budget, and every film had a gross, even if we don't know them. I would very much like it not to have to remind you about this a fourth time. BMK ( talk) 01:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
You have removed the reliably sourced dates I have provided for Roscoe Lee Browne's date of birth. I'm quite certain the New York Times, the U.S. edition of The Guardian newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, and NNBD are all superior to your sources, which are neither reliable nor definitive. Additionally, the NYT, LA Times and Guardian were all obituaries, which newspapers of record compile well in advance of notable deaths. So your notion that the NYT obit, which was published on the day of his death, is "outdated(?)" or "derivative," has absolutely no basis in fact.
If anything, it is your sources which are derivative. The "Visionary Leadership Project" even lists on Browne's page that its sources are his Wikipedia and IMDB pages. The "FamilySearch" website itself also admits the likelihood of "errors", as "Everyone can see and edit deceased records". Browne's page on the "Behind the Voice Actors" website itself concedes it is "an unofficial site." And it certainly wouldn't be the first time a book was found to have published inaccurate information.
So in general, I would note that we need to stick with the reliable sources, per WP:RS - and virtually all of them say Browne was 81 at the time of his death, having been born in 1925.
However, the fact also remains that I have just discovered video of Browne himself claiming that he was born in 1922. Now while it is also certainly not unheard of for actors to fabricate claims relating to their birth dates, I think it is appropriate for this project - short of finding a copy of his birth certificate online - to articulate both the dates listed in the newspapers of record, as well as Browne's own claim. Therefore, I will give you an opportunity to respond here before proceeding to include all this information in the article. X4n6 ( talk) 00:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
You must be aware of WP:REDLINK and WP:LINKROT which explain how to deal with external and internal links.
“ | Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic | ” |
— WP:REDLINK |
“ | Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer. | ” |
— WP:LINKROT |
You obviously disagree, but you are not allowed to keep ignoring the community's consensus.
Its even worse, in some cases you don't just unlink them, you actively remove information because you dislike red links so much.
Other people have also complained, but you ignore them.
I also left a message, but you deleted it see here. You posted comments on my talkpage (see below).
For this edit you used the editsummary "delinked redlinks".
I noticed that you have delinked red links to things that have a Wikipedia article (Two examples: here you delinked "Hum Ne Li Hai-Shapath" which seems to be the Indian name of the first series of SuperCops vs Supervillains and in this edit you delinked the name "Hanan al Shaykh", but there is an article about him called Hanan al-Shaykh).
But there are many more examples where you delete red links that should not be removed, for example here you remove the redlink to the movie "If This Be Sin" and here you remove the red link to the TV series "Jacques Cousteau's Ocean Tales".
Extended content
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Delinking redlinksThere is no problem delinking redlinks when they are so numerous as to overwhelm a particular article in red ink (so to speak). You are mistaken re Jacques Cousteau's Ocean Tales -- there is no Wikipedia article with this name, so delinking is fine, unless you wanted me to link Jacques Cousteau's Ocean Tales to Jacques Cousteau, which is unnecessary, and which you can do if you choose. The inline link you provided is from IMDB, which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standard, although it is of course used by editors. If you wish to create an article with that name, fine. As far as your point regarding the Syria-related articles, I will check those out. Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Quality controlsA) As per WP:MOS: “The most important group to consider are the casual readers of Wikipedia, who will never do any significant editing. Infobox templates that contain many blank fields, question marks and unknowns present an unprofessional appearance, diminishing Wikipedia's reputation as a high-quality encyclopedia.” :::::I take the above to include overabundant redlinks and deadlinks, which I believe is a valid interpretation, and doesn't require invoking
IAR.
Quis separabit? 12:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
::::: Because the film and television program you mention are both long-term redlinked entries, which no one has seen fit to make articles about. The inline links you added are from IMDb, which is not considered a
reliable source, btw. Why shouldn't outdated, long-term redlinks, which have little if any chance of being made into articles, not be delinked? They detract from Wikipedia as a "high-quality encyclopedia" (see above MOS guidance). Yours again.
Quis separabit? 12:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I also do not think this statement should be restored, given the generalized and speculative quality which is inherent, which is why I removed it in the first place. Yours,
Quis separabit? 13:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC) (NOTE: Speculative text regarding the Hama Museum has been replaced with
sourced commentary.)
Quis separabit? 13:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You wrote: "There is no problem delinking redlinks when they are so numerous as to overwhelm a particular article in red ink (so to speak)". This is a big problem. You are not allowed to do that and you need to stop doing it. You wrote: "You are mistaken re Jacques Cousteau's Ocean Tales -- there is no Wikipedia article with this name, so delinking is fine, unless you wanted me to link Jacques Cousteau's Ocean Tales to Jacques Cousteau, which is unnecessary, and which you can do if you choose.". No, I am not mistaken, the fact that there is no Wikipedia article with that name does not give you the right to delink it. Have you read WP:REDLINK?
You wrote: "I take the above to include overabundant redlinks and deadlinks, which I believe is a valid interpretation, and doesn't require invoking IAR." That is obviously not a valid interpretation. And BTW when a field in an infobox template is left blank (Why would anyone write "?" or "Unknown"?) then it will not be visible to the readers. You wrote: "Please make any replies here rather than on my talk page; I find it simpler. Thanks". Bad idea, the conversation is about you so this is the appropriate place. You have made over 150.000 edits so it would take a long time to check them all and restore all the red links that were deleted without a valid reason. If you do not promise to stop this behaviour then I will ask for input from other users. Semidoctum ( talk) 12:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC) REPLY TO @Semidoctuma) I delink redlinks which are unlikely to be made into articles. I delete links which are dubious, disreputable, unsourced, unverifiable, etc. Please recognize the distinction. I will recheck WP:REDLINK and WP:LINKROT to see if I have misinterpreted those sections, and to what extent WP:IAR applies/can apply.
b) I noticed that you have delinked red links to things that have a Wikipedia article (Two examples: here you delinked "Hum Ne Li Hai-Shapath" which seems to be the Indian name of the first series of SuperCops vs Supervillains and in this edit you delinked the name "Hanan al Shaykh", but there is an article about him called Hanan al-Shaykh).
c) Regarding infoboxes: "And BTW when a field in an infobox template is left blank (Why would anyone write "?" or "Unknown"?) then it will not be visible to the readers."
d) ''"[[Hama museum]] was also reported to have been looted {{by whom|date=May 2013}} on 14 July 2011 and a [[gold]]en, [[Arameans|Aramaic]] statue dating to the 8th century BC was stolen. The doors were not damaged in the incident, possibly indicating staff responsibility for the looting."'' {{od}} I also do not think this statement should be restored, given the generalized and speculative quality which is inherent, which is why I removed it in the first place. Yours, [[User:[email protected]|<font color="orange">'''''Quis separabit?'''''</font>]] 13:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC) {{od}}(NOTE: Speculative text regarding the Hama Museum has been replaced with [[WP:RS|sourced]] commentary.) [[User:[email protected]|<font color="orange">'''''Quis separabit?'''''</font>]] 13:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
e) For [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_heritage_sites_damaged_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&diff=next&oldid=677818481 this edit] you used the editsummary "delinked redlinks"
f) You are free to "ask for input from other users" if you choose. g) I have chosen to collapse this entire colloquy which is my right as this is my talk page. Please do not mess around with that as that is not your prerogative and will be regarded as harassment. Quis separabit? 20:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, What criteria are you using to decide the eligibility for inclusion in days of the year? I agree some of the people should have been removed, but not all. I was told that people with pages in at least 10 other languages are automatically eligible for inclusion.
Anonymous032 ( talk) 23:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Anonymous032: I checked google for number of Wikipedia entries by language. If I screwed up, I accept responsibility. Please let me know of any specific instances where I messed up and I will fix them if you haven't already. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For the amount of times I've reverted vandalism back to your great edits on a Days of the year article. You're my go-to expert for Days of the year from here on in. Olly say hi 21:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
Thank you for setting me straight on editing July 30. My mistake - will pay more attention in future! Ernst G. Meint ( talk) 12:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope, please just remove it from all articles where you see it. Oh, gosh. I see that you did it to a lot of articles. Would you please undo your edits? Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I see you restored something I reverted here [10]. My apologies in not having explained the removal in the summary. As you can see, it was a lengthy summary cut into parts so I merely forgot this part. Although you made modifications to the edit you restored, if you look back at what you did (the link I provided), you'll find that the same information appears verbatim earlier in the article. I should have stated "rmv duplicate paragraph" but it simply escaped me since I did everything in one single edit. -- OJ ( talk) 08:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
stop editing as if each edit is the first you ever made. Please learn from what you've been told on other exits.
Most of all, 'stop knee-jerk reverting instead of discussing on the talk page. Se WP:BRD: When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.
You know this, I know you know this, and yet you continue to use the revert button as if you had never heard of BRD and never used a talk page. You must' get over this very, very bad habit.
You know that your condition does not excuse your behavior, and I have beenn extremely patient and, I think, helpful because of it, but the continued poor judgment in your editing has to stop. BMK ( talk) 03:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)