User talk:[email protected]/Archive 12

Hayley Atwell

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)

Board members on Bill McDermott article

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

Barnstar for you

		The Recent Changes Barnstar
		This is for sending me all those nice thank you notes. Asarelah (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Gary Bettman

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)

Thanks for the thanks

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)

IvanOS

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)

Ustaše

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)

But why did you drop you objection? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Upon reflection. Quis separabit? 20:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Anne Morrow Lindbergh

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)

Mary Herring

I'll be back to finish adding references this evening. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

All done. I wrote the article back in 2007. It's been refurbished now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Alec Hurley

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)

@Cassianto: You're very welcome. Quis separabit? 11:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Question?

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)

Disregard above; obviously not a problem. Cheers! Sundayclose (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: that BAFTA Journal/Lawrence of Arabia link

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)

Jiang

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)

Please leave messages on my talk page, not user page, thanks. Colipon (Talk) 15:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
For instance: "In the early 1990s, post-Tiananmen economic reforms had stabilized and the country was on a consistent growth trajectory. At the same time, China faced a myriad of economic and social problems. At Deng's state funeral in 1997, Jiang delivered the elder statesman's eulogy. Jiang had inherited a China rampant with political corruption, and regional economies growing too rapidly for the stability of the entire country. Deng's policy that "some areas can get rich before others" led to an opening wealth gap between coastal regions and the interior provinces. The unprecedented economic growth and the deregulation in a number of heavy industries led to the closing of many state-owned enterprises (SOEs), breaking the iron rice bowl."
"A chaotic environment of illegal bonds issued from civil and military officials resulted in much of the corrupted wealth ending up in foreign countries. The re-emergence of organized crime and a surge in crime rates began to plague cities. A careless stance on the destruction of the environment furthered concerns voiced by intellectuals."
Yours, Quis separabit? 15:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Bridgid Coulter for deletion

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)

Frangex

Re this edit; my understanding is that you consider this an invalid reflink? MyTuppence (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Marva Collins

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)

Persondata

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)

I asked because it seemed like you were removing it without verification. Many innacurate persondata was transferred from Wikipedia because it was automatically migrated to Wikidata. SLBedit (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: No, I verified that the info in the persondata was already present in the infobox and/or the article (usually both) before rv the deprecated persondata. If I am doing something wrong please let me know (with diff), so I can see to what you're referring. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:23, 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)

Cast lists

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)

Piper

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)

Iman Darweesh Al Hams

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)

Hasso Plattner article

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

Louise Makin

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)

Ireland project banners

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)

Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do

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)

Let's keep the discussion in one place.

Adventuress is an outdated term but surely the fact that "[S]he hung a huge electric sign, "DOWN WITH MACDONALD THE TRAITOR", in the rigging of Liberty, and sailed round Great Britain" is an adventure. As far as "patriot" goes, it would be unfair and selective to remove it from this article unless it is removed from all article leads. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"Later she sailed around the UK in her sizable yacht with an electric sign in the rigging that read DOWN WITH MACDONALD THE TRAITOR".[2] Unless she sailed her yacht single-handed, this isn't my idea of an adventurer. Whether the word "patriot" is being used in other articles, rightly or wrongly, has nothing to do with the fact that it doesn't belong in this particular one. (George Washington is widely recognized as a patriot, yet that isn't even mentioned in his introduction.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. One person's patriot is another's traitor. I'm sure one George considered the other the latter, not the former. It's such a loaded word. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

CVS (Commercial Valuers and Surveyors) article

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)

User:68.175.110.172

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)

A kitten for you!

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)

Spent most of his remaining ears in poverty

Changing "most of his remaining years" to "remaining ears"? Hmmm. How many ears did he have? Bishonen | talk 13:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen -- dude we all make typos, LOL. Quis separabit? 14:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Some people aren't dudes, me for instance. Anyway, my point was that it's an unusual kind of typo. It's not that you wrote "ears" for "years" — I would never have complained about that — you removed the "y" in the word "years", that was there before. I know you're a respectable editor, sir, but I thought you might be feeling playful. Bishonen | talk 14:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: To Whom It May Concern: I can assure you that I did not suddenly lose all my remaining sanity or my knowledge of the English language. If I removed the "y", as you say, then it had to have been while editing, with enormous difficulty, from my home PC which has a broken keyboard (see comments I made a couple of threads above re same) and with a band-aid on my right thumb, and must have lost the "y" in the copy/paste. Right now, I am using a working keyboard outside. I enjoy being playful but not with typos in my work product. Quis separabit? 14:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Your Gareth Peirce thanks

YVW. It's nice to be appreciated. Manytexts (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Hey

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)

plz help us

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)

Heart attack isn't a disease

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)

@Brossow:: OK, I am not going to dispute it with you anymore. That a heart attack is not considered a form of cardiovascular disease is news to me. I'll admit it. The reason why I was wanted to include the Deaths from disease category is because it has become a de facto container category for "natural" deaths, as opposed to murder, accident, suicide, assassination, terrorism, etc. However, the Deaths from cardiovascular disease and Deaths from myocardial infarction categories were removed by CFD. Your persuasive and passionate arguments which have convinced me to reconsider, I will not restore the category to the Volontè page. Thanks for the 411 re myocardial infarctions not being cardiovascular diseases. Quis separabit? 15:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't want to battle over something as mundane as a category, and I'm really pleased that we were able to quickly reach an understanding on this. I'll be the first to admit that from a distance this looks like I'm being utterly pedantic, but at the end of the day, isn't that attention to minute detail what we want in Wikipedia editors? Anyway, I ramble. Thanks again for the quick response. If there's anything you need support on in future, please reach out. B.Rossow · talk 15:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sam Lucas page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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)

"Pueblo" is not a nationality

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)

@Katya: Well, the DOY birth format is fairly simple: Year of birth dash name comma nationality space occupation/profession space (year of death, if applicable). I understand your concern about "[erasing] her identity as a Native American woman" but the DOY list is merely a chronology of events occurring. It's clear from the article on Vera (which I looked at and tweaked; hope you don't mind) clearly explains everything, although it is a bit short for an article. It would be great if you could add more. As far as your direct question, I would think the following should be all right, although there may be editor(s) who would disagree.

*[[Vera Chino]], [[Acoma Pueblo]] (Native American) potter.
Quis separabit? 16:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I can do that. FYI, I added a bunch of Native American artists to DOY pages at the same time, so I'll try to go through them all and reformat them by the end of the day (just so you don't have to keep reverting them). Katya (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Katya: Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 17:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Budget" and "Gross" in film articles

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)

Roscoe Lee Browne

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)

@X4n6: Browne was born in 1922 (see here) in addition to all the other sites I referenced. The NYT obituary is not infallible nor it it the gospel; it is based on whatever info was available at the time. What is more, your own evidence (Browne himself claiming that he was born in 1922) is more than sufficient to establish 1922 as the correct year of birth. There is no reason for any actor to claim to be older than generally thought. While female actors often lie about their ages, it is almost always to make themselves younger. Male actors rarely, but occasionally, lie about their age as well but Browne had no reason to do so. By the way, when was that claim by Browne himself made (i.e. what year)? I am always willing to compromise on contentious years of birth (i.e. Joan Crawford, Alice Evans, Lee Grant...), in this case it is evident that Browne was born in 1922, according to the gentleman himself. Quis separabit? 00:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I really do not want to have to go to dispute resolution about this. By the way, his surname is Browne, not Brown. Quis separabit? 00:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Your latest source is just as derivative as all your others. What is "Mooseroots.com?" And if it pulls from the same Church of Latter Day Saints database as the "FamilySearch" website, then obviously, it is subject to the same errors. For some reason, you also seem to repeatedly key in on the NYT obit, while completely ignoring the LA Times and Guardian obits, which say the exact same thing - independently of the NYT.

I would also note that Variety - which is the entertainment industry publication of record - also says Browne was 81 when he died.

As does The History Makers, which bills itself as "The Nation's Largest African American Video Oral History Collection," which also boasts two separate interviews with Browne on 10/5/2005 and 3/30/2006, where he apparently indicates his birthdate is 1925, as that is the date provided in the website's bio. So your notion that his one statement is more than sufficient and definitive, added to your speculation about why actors lie about their ages, is purely that: merely speculation. We do not edit based on speculation. We edit based on reliable sources. Again, if he himself has provided contradictory dates in interviews, who are we to presume what is factual? That is not our call here. Our responsibility is simply to provide what the reliable sources state. Period. So as there is clearly controversy regarding his birthdate, it seems equally clear that the only reasonable response is to simply address that controversy in the article, not attempt to judge its outcome ourselves.

Also, the fact that you would note that I misspelled Browne's surname once in multiple references (which I have now corrected), was petty. As is your apparent belief that dispute resolution is required for us to do our jobs and simply provide reliable sources explaining the conflicting information regarding his actual date of birth. But if DR is the only way to resolve including this controversy in the article, then I am certainly happy to oblige. Because, per LEAD and every other rule or guideline that comes to mind, including it all is the only right thing to do. So just let me know how you'd like to proceed. X4n6 (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Red links and dead links

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.

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

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.

• User_talk:[email protected]/Archive_7#Duke_lacrosse_case
• User_talk:[email protected]/Archive_9#Dead_links_issue
• User_talk:[email protected]/Archive_1#Please_don.27t_delete_red_links

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 redlinks There 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) Hi, I fixed the article as best I could. Aside from this recent change, according to this most recent diff (see [9]), I don't otherwise see a massive disparity between your editing and mine but please feel free to point out anything I may have (pbly) missed. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Quality controls A) 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) B) 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". ::::: 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) C) "Hama museum was also reported to have been looted on 14 July 2011 and a golden, 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." 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) Please make any replies here rather than on my talk page; I find it simpler. Thanks. Quis separabit? 14:34, 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? “ 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 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 @Semidoctum a) 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. PLEASE NOTE: "Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should often be removed, depending on the list-selection criteria chosen for that list." Many redlinked or unlinked names which I remove are from such lists. I guess if you decide to review my 150,000 or so edits you can keep track of that. PLEASE NOTE: "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject" This is rather subjective, no?? Quis separabit? 01:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 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). I never edited either the Hanan al-Shaykh article or SuperCops vs Supervillains article.so where is this mistake I made? Whoops, never mind. I found it and undid it. Quis separabit? 01:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 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." I don't know. I rarely, if ever, do that, so I don't know why you are asking me. Some infobox parameters are invisible even when filled in depending on the type of infobox (profession) but you can't tell that until you do a preview or a view, absent which one might not even know that the parameters are hidden for whatever reason. Some bios are not even supposed to have infoboxes but I can't cite you a list, you'll have to check that out on your own. 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) Question - why is this even included here? e) For [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_heritage_sites_damaged_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&diff=next&oldid=677818481 this edit] you used the editsummary "delinked redlinks" True, and I had done so at least once in that article. Honest edit summary. What's your point? 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)

---

May 22

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)

A barnstar for you!

		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. Ollysay hi 21:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

July 30

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)

is it allowed to delete the warning? Ernst G. Meint (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Quis separabit? 17:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Persondata

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)

Catholic clergy

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)

Please...

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)

• @BMK: That is because this is a minor issue really not worth the trouble of going to BRD, especially since the editing is not BOLD to begin with. I see no reason for your refusal to state what the problem is and it is disrespectful to treat another seasoned editor this way. Neither of us is newbies. Quis separabit? 04:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Being around for a long time doesn't earn you (or me) immunity. If I make a shitty edit, and another editor fixes it and makes things better, that's great by me. I may not send him a ice cream cake (I'm not in this for its Facebook aspects), but I certainly don't revert him back simply because I've been here for a long time with a shitload of edits to my name. What's better is better, whether it comes from me, or you, or any other editor. If what you edit isn't an improvement, I'm not going to play footsie with you "Oh, here're the reasons why, don't you think you ought to revert yourself? Hmmmmmmm?" No, I'm just going to revert you and improve the article. That's not disrespect for you, it's respect for the integrity and utility and accuracy of the encyclopedia, and, not at all unimportantly, it's respect for our readers, who we are here to serve, not our own egos.
  If I don't state what exactly the problem is with your edits when I revert them, it' because I'm working my way through a hugh watchlist, and I think the problems should be obvious to any veteran editor. Certainly they should cause you to have a closer, second look at your edits and wonder what I might have found wrong about them. If you do that, you're more than likely to understand why I made the revert. I can promise you that my editing isn't personality based (although I'm as human as the next person), isn't about getting even or scoring points, iit's totally about improving the encyclopedia. Please keep that in mind from now on, OK? BMK (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@BMK -- no one will ever accuse you of "personality based" editing.

"If I make a shitty edit, and another editor fixes it and makes things better, that's great by me. I may not send him a ice cream cake (I'm not in this for its Facebook aspects), but I certainly don't revert him back simply because I've been here for a long time with a shitload of edits to my name."

* "shitty" is a subjective term I am pretty sure you would not use in an edit summary. You could/would have spent less time in explaining what your problem is/was with the edit with an explanation or an edit summary (the second of which is generally required when reverting other editors' work, and something I always try to do) than on this drawn out diatribe and drawing a line in the sand over trivialities. That's not "playing footsie", whatever that means. To twice revert edits without any explanation or an edit summary is discourteous and disrespectful.

" *Being around for a long time doesn't earn you (or me) immunity." -- exactly so, who said otherwise?
*It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit (first line at WP:EDITSUMMARY).

* "knee-jerk reverting" -- I don't believe I engage in knee jerk editing. I often go to the talk page to posit questions about edits. Your knee jerk reverting without explanation or edit summary because you're "working [my] way through a hugh watchlist" is your issue. Who told you to have such a heavy watchload? I have a watchlist of 1650 1610 (not that this is a pissing contest).

* I don't know what you mean by "Facebook aspects" -- I don't have a Facebook page.

@BMK: * I don't get your attitude. You act like we are constantly edit warring. I don't remember having any particular issues or disagreements with you. So unless I am forgetting some searingly traumatic interplay, what gives? Quis separabit? 16:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite obvious that you "just don't get it." My fear is that you never will. BMK (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)