This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
would you mind not interfering with my fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.255.14.201 ( talk) 19:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Arcandam ( talk) 16:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. On a unrelated note: awesome archive-cat!
Saw your recent edit, regarding this category, and decided to ask you for your thoughts.
Should this category be expanded, or simply killed?
This category could be expanded. Populating this category with just a handfull of names, however, does not provide sufficient scope. If one prefers this sub-category over Category:stock brokers, then it would be best to undertake populating it through a search under Stockbroker then "Toolbox" then "What links here". Several hundred stockbrokers are listed, many of whom are Americans.
However... how does one define an "American" stockbroker? Does that mean American by nationality, or "American stockbroker" by virtue of having worked (exclusively/primarilty) in the American capital markets? That question might not be very significant in the case of, say, musical composers. A "Hungarian Composer" is still Hungarian, wherever he works. But what about "Hungarian stockbroker" if the Hungarian citizen worked his entire life (and made his noteworthy contributions, with noteworthy contacts and personal/professional associations) on the NYSE? Does directing someone to "Category:Hungarian Stockbrokers" provide meaningful information, if the individual never worked on the Budapest Stock Exchange? Would you need, yet another, sub-category for "Hungarian-American" stockbrokers? For that reason, I think it best to reconsider the value of this sub-category. Having one general search tool Category:stock brokers for all stockbrokers would seem to provide greater clarity and value. Gulbenk ( talk) 19:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:NLT this could be construed as one. Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Harvard University (Notable people)". Thank you. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I happen to agree with you about the need to identify who benefited from the "proliferation of bank notes". I may, however, change the syntax a bit.
Also, why is my username red-inked? I have a user talk page, so I'm not quite sure what the issue is. So far, I've let it go because the red color makes it easier to locate in a lineup. But can you explain this? 36hourblock ( talk) 18:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, I've noticed that you have been involved in Italian American article. Would you mind participating in voting on Italian American notables?-- Yerevanci ( talk) 23:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
As a frequent or occasional editor of U.S. election-related articles, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.-- JayJasper ( talk) 05:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Without any discussion, you reverted my changes with the subjective explanation of "the original was better" (without offering any evidence as to why).
The original used weak, passive, and wordy constructions. That is why I changed it. It was reverted by a defective bot that misidentified my changes as "vandalism." Once I saw that was done, I reverted to my changes.
I changed "having been nominated by" to "was nominated by." "Having been" is a weak and archaic verb structure. It's also verbose -- more words to say the same thing and using a pointless gerund to boot.
I changed the wordier "after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist" to "after Chief Justice William Rehnquist died." Again, a weaker and verbose construction changed to a stronger construction with fewer words.
I changed the wordier and weaker "after being admitted to the bar" to "after admission to the bar" -- fewer words, tighter construction, elimination of another pointless gerund.
I have thirty years of professional experience as an editor, including time at Condé Nast. So I'm not exactly inexperienced at editing. I am mystified, however, as to how passive, verbose, and archaic language is somehow "better." And your qualifications to make that proclamatory fiat are? And why is the original material allegedly "better"? Wikipedia is purportedly an exercise in collaboration -- how is summarily stamping something as "better" without any discussion nor rationale an example of effective and beneficent collaboration? 108.36.80.228 ( talk) 03:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
From your contribution rank, [1] please consider commenting at Proposed edits to "Personal life" if you haven't already done so. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 07:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Not unsupported original research. If she were born in 1974 (which she is), she would definitely be six years old in 1980. Many articles list both the subject's year and age. Mila Kunis, Natalie Portman, Sarah Palin just for a few. Spelling Style ( talk) 02:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, changing staes without explanation is a common form of vandalism, so you're gong to need to provide a citation for your change in 1915 to 1916 in this article. As always, when I fact is disputed, it is incumbent on the person who wished to include the fact to provide a citation from a reliable source when challenged. I'd appreciate it if you'd so so. Thanks, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Adding quotations marks to clearly illustrate that this is a verbatium quotation is not disruptive editing. Stop being so pedantic ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corbynz ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Before you repeatedly and automatically revert my edits to the John Birch article, please take the time to educate yourself and look up the definition of "murder" in a reputable English dictionary, such as the Oxford English Dictionary or the Merriam-Webster dictionary. My selection of the word is deliberate and precise, not pushing a "point of view". Furthermore, see my comment on the subject on the John Birch Talk Page. — Quicksilver T @ 00:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: this edit, I was about to do the same thing (well, with two of the sources). I guess we'll see if the editor keeps it up. - Rrius ( talk) 03:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It was my understanding that when introducing a new organization, such as a successor or auxillery, that it was customary to bold them, such as Order of the Confederate Rose and Save the Sons of Confederate Veterans. What is the proper use?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 02:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
There was no interpretation intended, just a direct quote and the source document as a pdf. Is it the content, or the POV website referenced that you object to? Would it be OK to spell out the issue (depopulation policy for LDC's) without the 'biased website' reference?BCameron54 03:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Fat&Happy, when making edits such as this one (and even also this followup) it is important that you give a meaningful edit summary so that other editors know what's going on. What might be "blatantly obvious" for you is likely to be less obvious to someone else. Thanks, and happy editing! Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi
Please leave the Persian Language page alone, and please don't just make arbitrary editing without proper explanation. We are Iranian linguistic experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.144.237 ( talk) 05:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello F&H, Do you know why the bar with Watchlist is missing? Been gone for at least two days on both my home nd work computers. You can just respond, if you would, on my talk p. Meanwhile hope the wind is at your back. Your old pal,-- 174.106.64.97 ( talk) 01:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Nevermind I see it's because I wasn't logged in. Yours,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 02:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Fat&Happy! I'm confused about the placement of the period here: why would that caption require punctuation while two longer captions nearby (also ending in dates) don't? Not that I mind either way, but I'm happy to receive tips on formatting! :) Best. Acalamari 07:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
How ya'll doin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.126.219 ( talk) 19:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I've commented about your elimination of the list of nominees who have released tax returns. Cheers. 64.134.98.120 ( talk) 00:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No policies or guidelines were disregarded, misapplied or at all involved. But thank you for recognizing and affirming the point I was making. If using the word "allegation" like this is improper in describing Fox's stance, it must be equally improper in describing the other side's stance. InedibleHulk ( talk) 17:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I just discovered that Creativemind15 sneaked in the VP candidates into the presidential candidates sections of the 2008 and 2012 election articles. In the 2008 article, he did it within the past 24 hours, adding Biden and Palin, and their pics. And he added the words subtitles "Nominees" and "Withdrew" in both articles, even though those sections are just to list the presidential candidates. For example, see the Republican candidates sections in the 2012 article. [2] I just reverted what Creativemind did in the 2008 article and put in the edit comments that that section is for presidential candidates only; and that the VP nominees are only in the infobox. In the 2012 article, he started sneaking in the content at: 22:02, 14 August 2012 and apparently no one noticed. I can't revert it because the article is protected. He added Biden and Ryan, and their pics into the candidates section. I also notice he sneaks in changes of pics with comments like "I like this one better" or "This one is better", etc. Anyway, I fixed 2008, but I can't fix 2012 because it's protected. Here's the starting point in each article where he started added the VPs and their pics into the presidential candidates sections in the two articles: [3] (2008) and [4] (2012). Here's what the candidates photo gallery sections looked like in the 2012 article before Creativemind started changing them. [5] Thanks. -- 76.189.126.159 ( talk) 20:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I've redone the link to take you right to the supporting item. 11 paragraphs down it reads "According to the Minister of Health Service, Hon Anthony Eden, the Cayman Islands is the first country in the world to mandate health insurance for all residents." Ace-o-aces ( talk) 21:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment on your revision: This content "In fact, Japanese troops garrisoning throughout the country viewed Thailand as a "colony" rather than an "ally."[5][6]" couldn't be found in the given references. Please check the references carefully, in fact, " Ultimately, the primary aim was to ensure the resolution of Thailand's sovereignty and establish an independent nation that would be regarded as an equal by the Allies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdaikon ( talk • contribs) 05:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment: since, early posted as good-faith assumption you've mentioned, I found the same above-content posted in Spanish (Español page) as well which was exactly same content but in English. Now, it already has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdaikon ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You removed the parent category Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights (presumably) because of the redundant child category Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage
While you were correct to remove the redundancy, it was the child category that should have removed. The parent category holds the children as well as organizations which oppose more than one LGBT right (e.g. adoption rights, hospital visitation, survivor rights, citizenship, etc.). I just put the child category under the parent, and was about to remove the child category from the articles. Please bear with me as this takes a little time and coordination. Thank you. – MrX 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
You're wrong about the categorization, as MrX explained nicely. But you're even more wrong to edit-war over it. You're at 3RR on some articles. I suggest that you stop. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 01:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I've never encountered you until today, but wanted to caution you that some of the pages you have edited today have a few problematic editors watching them. Please tread carefully as most of these pages are being watched by admins. But if you can't be goaded into problematic editing, then you have nothing to fear. Regards.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm posting this here because the section on Obama's page was closed. You accused me of being a troll. This offended me, not in a personal manner, but because what you did contravenes the spirit of Wikipedia - I'm a new user with a controversial opinion and you took the easy way out and accused me of bullshitting. I have a couple of questions.
What makes you think this? You mentioned obama making a joke about his name being O'Bama. That is not comparable with his wife saying unequivocally that his "home country", whatever that means, is Kenya. Second, since you in essence accused me of essentially breaking the rules, do you plan on actually reporting me to an administrator and following up on your assertions? YankeeJeff ( talk) 08:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I really do plan to go through these articles and standardize the dates to mmmm dd, yyyy. I tried to do it with the MOSNUMscript, but it simply didn't work. Thanks for jumping in and helping. – MrX 02:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. YankeeJeff ( talk) 23:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You wrote about the quote from Maureen Dowd in this article: "no indication one woman's colorful and partisan opinion is of biographical noteworthiness." It's colorful, but not partisan. Are you suggesting that biographical articles in Wikipedia can't offer criticism of their subjects? Blandness is a virtue in encyclopedias? Chisme ( talk) 01:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I was curious as to how long in time a romance needs to be and what do you consider a reputable source before it can be placed in Mila Kunis and/or Ashton Kutcher's pages? Your recent note on Mila's page in removing an editor's post on their dating says it is "unsourced trivial gossip." What source(s) are good enough, and does it have to be from an old-line network (CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX/CNN) or a less well-known entertainment source? Do either of them have to publicly confirm it before it can be placed into a Wiki page, and is that necessary at all? Can you give us some guidelines on this point, since it is strange that numerous sources have reported them out on dates, even living together, and with *many pics* and reporting on their public events together, such as a vacation in far-away Bali. Why can't Wiki have one of those sources considered reputable? I'm thinking of eonline.com and people.com, to name two: Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis Kiss, Pack on the PDA in NYC and Ashton Kutcher & Mila Kunis's PDA-Filled Weekend Thanks! -- Katydidit ( talk) 07:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
One more example from the establishment L.A. Times, so you can't say it's from an "unsourced trivial gossip magazine." And pictures of them out together on a date don't lie, such as if it was just an article only with no pics to back up the claim. You don't fly off to faraway Bali together if *not* on a date. Ashton Kutcher, Mila Kunis — drum roll — hold hands in Bali -- Katydidit ( talk) 07:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could explain this edit. [6]
Your edit summary was "rm misrepresented WP-blacklisted source"
You removed the source and then added a citation needed tag, and I'm mystified as to why.
Thanks – MrX 23:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Youre brilliant, F&H. Seriously. You're suggestions for vocabulary are spot on. i wish I had thought of these words/phrasies. Can't respond in more detail to your chat but will as soon as I have a minute. And will digest your thinking. The talk p. has been quiet today since I wrote my rebuttle so we'll see what happens. Why don't you add your suggestions to the talk p.? Or I guess since you haven't done the research you can't really wordsmith. In any case, I'll move forward and act on your suggestions. you see, you do have a scholarly mind--you understand the profound difference in scholarship that one word can make. don't you find that fascinating? More soon,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 02:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you have my talk p. on your watchlist? I have a message for you there. If not, I'll check back here from time to time.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
You're a speed demon. Glad someone's on top of addressing problems like the removal of the pic from the commons. Weird. Don't personally care for the AK pic--not very expressive nor interesting to me--but not motivated to do anything about it. Got a message from Princetonian who had deleted all the stuff about GG's relationships a couple of weeks ago. Said he thought the relationships section was "better." I was rereading the Schanke bio of MdA and found reliable evidence that they were lovers. MdA states they were in a letter to the currator of the Rosenbach Museum & Library where she sold her papers. Eventually I'll get to that edit. Take good care,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Good MdA adjustment. Every prolific WP contributor should have a good editor, like you, keeping up with his or her writing. Very important in all published work.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Correct guess. You fix all my typos. Per recent edits to G p: I decided to put an end to my timidity (afraid of the deniers) and state the facts. Ironically (or paradoxically--still have trouble with the very complex word irony), this comes after an editor objected to my use of the terms "alleged," and "speculate."-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 02:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought I fixed all the missing pp's. ONe of my goals is to edit something on these damn pages that you don't have fix or correct. You must think I'm an idiot, which I am.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 02:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "...you meant to do a Cntl-C copy and used a Cntl-X cut instead...." It's true I do cntl-x but don't know what the problem is which is why I continue to do it. Can you briefly explain the problem of doing a Cntl-x? About "only." I do think it is tendentious on this page but not on the G p. Since MdA was without any doubt a lesbian I don't think it's necessary. I include her statement that they were lovers--unequivocal truth. On G p., still a shadow of a doubt so necessary, I think, to include it. I don't know. Maybe this is crazy reasoning. I don't add MdA's letter to the museum currator asserting they were lovers because I just don't to take even more space on her sexuality which, as I've said, should not be central to her legacy. But still important because, as i read today, speculation about her sexuality goes back to 1931! And the question of her sexuality has facinated Garbo watchers since then. Your thoughts?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 02:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Jesus. Don't pay any attention to me. I got everything backward. Added "only" back to GG, which I thought was MdA, for the reasons I cite above. I'm very tired and should have stopped editing earlier, or at least not talked to you! I think the adjustments I've made however are good ones. Don't for get to clarify the cntrl x/c for me. I'm vexed.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 03:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I think I might have made the same cntr x/c mistake again but don't know exactly what the result is. And now it's time to say goodbye to this damn p. for a while. I can't believe I started editing again but I revisited the books again to clarify stuff on MdA and found other stuff to add. That led to improvements because I'm a perfectionist, though you wouldn't know that from all the little mistakes I make that you fix.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 03:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the nytimes cit which I knew you probably would. Unfortunately, I put the wrong one in. (He wrote another in which he writes about her sexuality and says "a same-sex sexual relationship was her obvious choice." That's the one I meant to put in and will have to redo the freakin thing. Will do my best to get it right this time. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 17:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that the event is not notable. I believe the indefinite suspension of chapter at U of TN is significance. This isn't a routine thing which is why it became such a major coverage and I find that the incident meets WP:EVENT Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Please note that you have both reached (or exceeded) the limits of WP:3RR on Pi Kappa Alpha. Please work toward a consensus before making further edits regarding this issue. Might I suggest a request for comments? - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
So let's see what happens when I find the source for my "unsourced characterizations".-- Saidkassem ( talk) 05:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the new editor's understanding of our policies. I removed some OR at Ishmael and raised his edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. I'll ask for a review of Isaac's GA status if the Christian views section isn't fixed. Ishmael I don't know enough about to say if it's an improvement or not. Dougweller ( talk) 08:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your undo to my edit in the Walter Mondale article. Your point about notability would be well-taken if I had created an article about the Naomi Ashley song, but I didn't. I'm just adding some bits to the "popular culture" section of the Mondale article. Mondale is notable, as is the fact that he has become a cultural touchstone of sorts, and the fact that musicians in the 21st centruy are writing songs about him supports the larger point of this section. The section currently is little more than a list and I hope to add some organization, as the question of why Mondale is a touchstone is interesting and there are probably credible articles on that topic. In deference to what I think was the point of the Undo I deleted the brackets around Ashley until such time as someone thinks she warrants an article or at least stub of her own. LakeAtNight ( talk) 16:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit about Diana not being a member of the Royal Family after her divorce? She most certainly was not a member once the H.R.H. was removed. At the time of her death, Diana had no more Royal status than Sarah Ferguson or Mark Phillips now do. 2.219.203.7 ( talk) 19:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Just an FYI, Kendall is not an incorporated community, therefore it is not a "city." Please read over its Wiki article and its sources to familiarize yourself with the community: Kendall. Comayagua99 ( talk)
Fat&Happy -- Curious why you removed the new link at David Amram as "rv personal blog linkspam."
Regards, Tdreyer ( talk) 19:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Tdreyer
My question is a serious one. I've done substantial editing on Wikipedia and I would like to know how you make that determination. The Rag Blog is not a personal blog. It is published by the New Journalism Project, a Texas 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, and features the work of dozens of well-known alternative journalists. There are scores of links to Rag Blog articles and Rag Radio podcasts on Wikipedia.
Tdreyer ( talk) 20:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Tdreyer
Thanks. Appreciate your response and your input. My reading of Wikipedia COI is that it is not considered a "conflict of interest" if the post is legitimate and relevant, and compatible with the "aim of Wikipedia." Tdreyer ( talk) 21:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Tdreyer
Thanks for your careful edits on this. I put back "controversial" because it's also cited in the Times's piece by Bagli and Berger, in the fifth paragraph: "Mr. Ratner, one of the most prominent and polarizing figures in real-estate-mad New York." If you still object, please discuss on the article's Talk page. thanks 208.125.29.157 ( talk) 00:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
would you mind not interfering with my fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.255.14.201 ( talk) 19:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Arcandam ( talk) 16:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. On a unrelated note: awesome archive-cat!
Saw your recent edit, regarding this category, and decided to ask you for your thoughts.
Should this category be expanded, or simply killed?
This category could be expanded. Populating this category with just a handfull of names, however, does not provide sufficient scope. If one prefers this sub-category over Category:stock brokers, then it would be best to undertake populating it through a search under Stockbroker then "Toolbox" then "What links here". Several hundred stockbrokers are listed, many of whom are Americans.
However... how does one define an "American" stockbroker? Does that mean American by nationality, or "American stockbroker" by virtue of having worked (exclusively/primarilty) in the American capital markets? That question might not be very significant in the case of, say, musical composers. A "Hungarian Composer" is still Hungarian, wherever he works. But what about "Hungarian stockbroker" if the Hungarian citizen worked his entire life (and made his noteworthy contributions, with noteworthy contacts and personal/professional associations) on the NYSE? Does directing someone to "Category:Hungarian Stockbrokers" provide meaningful information, if the individual never worked on the Budapest Stock Exchange? Would you need, yet another, sub-category for "Hungarian-American" stockbrokers? For that reason, I think it best to reconsider the value of this sub-category. Having one general search tool Category:stock brokers for all stockbrokers would seem to provide greater clarity and value. Gulbenk ( talk) 19:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:NLT this could be construed as one. Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Harvard University (Notable people)". Thank you. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I happen to agree with you about the need to identify who benefited from the "proliferation of bank notes". I may, however, change the syntax a bit.
Also, why is my username red-inked? I have a user talk page, so I'm not quite sure what the issue is. So far, I've let it go because the red color makes it easier to locate in a lineup. But can you explain this? 36hourblock ( talk) 18:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, I've noticed that you have been involved in Italian American article. Would you mind participating in voting on Italian American notables?-- Yerevanci ( talk) 23:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
As a frequent or occasional editor of U.S. election-related articles, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.-- JayJasper ( talk) 05:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Without any discussion, you reverted my changes with the subjective explanation of "the original was better" (without offering any evidence as to why).
The original used weak, passive, and wordy constructions. That is why I changed it. It was reverted by a defective bot that misidentified my changes as "vandalism." Once I saw that was done, I reverted to my changes.
I changed "having been nominated by" to "was nominated by." "Having been" is a weak and archaic verb structure. It's also verbose -- more words to say the same thing and using a pointless gerund to boot.
I changed the wordier "after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist" to "after Chief Justice William Rehnquist died." Again, a weaker and verbose construction changed to a stronger construction with fewer words.
I changed the wordier and weaker "after being admitted to the bar" to "after admission to the bar" -- fewer words, tighter construction, elimination of another pointless gerund.
I have thirty years of professional experience as an editor, including time at Condé Nast. So I'm not exactly inexperienced at editing. I am mystified, however, as to how passive, verbose, and archaic language is somehow "better." And your qualifications to make that proclamatory fiat are? And why is the original material allegedly "better"? Wikipedia is purportedly an exercise in collaboration -- how is summarily stamping something as "better" without any discussion nor rationale an example of effective and beneficent collaboration? 108.36.80.228 ( talk) 03:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
From your contribution rank, [1] please consider commenting at Proposed edits to "Personal life" if you haven't already done so. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 07:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Not unsupported original research. If she were born in 1974 (which she is), she would definitely be six years old in 1980. Many articles list both the subject's year and age. Mila Kunis, Natalie Portman, Sarah Palin just for a few. Spelling Style ( talk) 02:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, changing staes without explanation is a common form of vandalism, so you're gong to need to provide a citation for your change in 1915 to 1916 in this article. As always, when I fact is disputed, it is incumbent on the person who wished to include the fact to provide a citation from a reliable source when challenged. I'd appreciate it if you'd so so. Thanks, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Adding quotations marks to clearly illustrate that this is a verbatium quotation is not disruptive editing. Stop being so pedantic ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corbynz ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Before you repeatedly and automatically revert my edits to the John Birch article, please take the time to educate yourself and look up the definition of "murder" in a reputable English dictionary, such as the Oxford English Dictionary or the Merriam-Webster dictionary. My selection of the word is deliberate and precise, not pushing a "point of view". Furthermore, see my comment on the subject on the John Birch Talk Page. — Quicksilver T @ 00:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: this edit, I was about to do the same thing (well, with two of the sources). I guess we'll see if the editor keeps it up. - Rrius ( talk) 03:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It was my understanding that when introducing a new organization, such as a successor or auxillery, that it was customary to bold them, such as Order of the Confederate Rose and Save the Sons of Confederate Veterans. What is the proper use?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 02:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
There was no interpretation intended, just a direct quote and the source document as a pdf. Is it the content, or the POV website referenced that you object to? Would it be OK to spell out the issue (depopulation policy for LDC's) without the 'biased website' reference?BCameron54 03:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Fat&Happy, when making edits such as this one (and even also this followup) it is important that you give a meaningful edit summary so that other editors know what's going on. What might be "blatantly obvious" for you is likely to be less obvious to someone else. Thanks, and happy editing! Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi
Please leave the Persian Language page alone, and please don't just make arbitrary editing without proper explanation. We are Iranian linguistic experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.144.237 ( talk) 05:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello F&H, Do you know why the bar with Watchlist is missing? Been gone for at least two days on both my home nd work computers. You can just respond, if you would, on my talk p. Meanwhile hope the wind is at your back. Your old pal,-- 174.106.64.97 ( talk) 01:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Nevermind I see it's because I wasn't logged in. Yours,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 02:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Fat&Happy! I'm confused about the placement of the period here: why would that caption require punctuation while two longer captions nearby (also ending in dates) don't? Not that I mind either way, but I'm happy to receive tips on formatting! :) Best. Acalamari 07:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
How ya'll doin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.126.219 ( talk) 19:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I've commented about your elimination of the list of nominees who have released tax returns. Cheers. 64.134.98.120 ( talk) 00:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No policies or guidelines were disregarded, misapplied or at all involved. But thank you for recognizing and affirming the point I was making. If using the word "allegation" like this is improper in describing Fox's stance, it must be equally improper in describing the other side's stance. InedibleHulk ( talk) 17:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I just discovered that Creativemind15 sneaked in the VP candidates into the presidential candidates sections of the 2008 and 2012 election articles. In the 2008 article, he did it within the past 24 hours, adding Biden and Palin, and their pics. And he added the words subtitles "Nominees" and "Withdrew" in both articles, even though those sections are just to list the presidential candidates. For example, see the Republican candidates sections in the 2012 article. [2] I just reverted what Creativemind did in the 2008 article and put in the edit comments that that section is for presidential candidates only; and that the VP nominees are only in the infobox. In the 2012 article, he started sneaking in the content at: 22:02, 14 August 2012 and apparently no one noticed. I can't revert it because the article is protected. He added Biden and Ryan, and their pics into the candidates section. I also notice he sneaks in changes of pics with comments like "I like this one better" or "This one is better", etc. Anyway, I fixed 2008, but I can't fix 2012 because it's protected. Here's the starting point in each article where he started added the VPs and their pics into the presidential candidates sections in the two articles: [3] (2008) and [4] (2012). Here's what the candidates photo gallery sections looked like in the 2012 article before Creativemind started changing them. [5] Thanks. -- 76.189.126.159 ( talk) 20:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I've redone the link to take you right to the supporting item. 11 paragraphs down it reads "According to the Minister of Health Service, Hon Anthony Eden, the Cayman Islands is the first country in the world to mandate health insurance for all residents." Ace-o-aces ( talk) 21:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment on your revision: This content "In fact, Japanese troops garrisoning throughout the country viewed Thailand as a "colony" rather than an "ally."[5][6]" couldn't be found in the given references. Please check the references carefully, in fact, " Ultimately, the primary aim was to ensure the resolution of Thailand's sovereignty and establish an independent nation that would be regarded as an equal by the Allies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdaikon ( talk • contribs) 05:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment: since, early posted as good-faith assumption you've mentioned, I found the same above-content posted in Spanish (Español page) as well which was exactly same content but in English. Now, it already has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdaikon ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You removed the parent category Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights (presumably) because of the redundant child category Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage
While you were correct to remove the redundancy, it was the child category that should have removed. The parent category holds the children as well as organizations which oppose more than one LGBT right (e.g. adoption rights, hospital visitation, survivor rights, citizenship, etc.). I just put the child category under the parent, and was about to remove the child category from the articles. Please bear with me as this takes a little time and coordination. Thank you. – MrX 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
You're wrong about the categorization, as MrX explained nicely. But you're even more wrong to edit-war over it. You're at 3RR on some articles. I suggest that you stop. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 01:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I've never encountered you until today, but wanted to caution you that some of the pages you have edited today have a few problematic editors watching them. Please tread carefully as most of these pages are being watched by admins. But if you can't be goaded into problematic editing, then you have nothing to fear. Regards.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm posting this here because the section on Obama's page was closed. You accused me of being a troll. This offended me, not in a personal manner, but because what you did contravenes the spirit of Wikipedia - I'm a new user with a controversial opinion and you took the easy way out and accused me of bullshitting. I have a couple of questions.
What makes you think this? You mentioned obama making a joke about his name being O'Bama. That is not comparable with his wife saying unequivocally that his "home country", whatever that means, is Kenya. Second, since you in essence accused me of essentially breaking the rules, do you plan on actually reporting me to an administrator and following up on your assertions? YankeeJeff ( talk) 08:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I really do plan to go through these articles and standardize the dates to mmmm dd, yyyy. I tried to do it with the MOSNUMscript, but it simply didn't work. Thanks for jumping in and helping. – MrX 02:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. YankeeJeff ( talk) 23:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You wrote about the quote from Maureen Dowd in this article: "no indication one woman's colorful and partisan opinion is of biographical noteworthiness." It's colorful, but not partisan. Are you suggesting that biographical articles in Wikipedia can't offer criticism of their subjects? Blandness is a virtue in encyclopedias? Chisme ( talk) 01:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I was curious as to how long in time a romance needs to be and what do you consider a reputable source before it can be placed in Mila Kunis and/or Ashton Kutcher's pages? Your recent note on Mila's page in removing an editor's post on their dating says it is "unsourced trivial gossip." What source(s) are good enough, and does it have to be from an old-line network (CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX/CNN) or a less well-known entertainment source? Do either of them have to publicly confirm it before it can be placed into a Wiki page, and is that necessary at all? Can you give us some guidelines on this point, since it is strange that numerous sources have reported them out on dates, even living together, and with *many pics* and reporting on their public events together, such as a vacation in far-away Bali. Why can't Wiki have one of those sources considered reputable? I'm thinking of eonline.com and people.com, to name two: Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis Kiss, Pack on the PDA in NYC and Ashton Kutcher & Mila Kunis's PDA-Filled Weekend Thanks! -- Katydidit ( talk) 07:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
One more example from the establishment L.A. Times, so you can't say it's from an "unsourced trivial gossip magazine." And pictures of them out together on a date don't lie, such as if it was just an article only with no pics to back up the claim. You don't fly off to faraway Bali together if *not* on a date. Ashton Kutcher, Mila Kunis — drum roll — hold hands in Bali -- Katydidit ( talk) 07:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could explain this edit. [6]
Your edit summary was "rm misrepresented WP-blacklisted source"
You removed the source and then added a citation needed tag, and I'm mystified as to why.
Thanks – MrX 23:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Youre brilliant, F&H. Seriously. You're suggestions for vocabulary are spot on. i wish I had thought of these words/phrasies. Can't respond in more detail to your chat but will as soon as I have a minute. And will digest your thinking. The talk p. has been quiet today since I wrote my rebuttle so we'll see what happens. Why don't you add your suggestions to the talk p.? Or I guess since you haven't done the research you can't really wordsmith. In any case, I'll move forward and act on your suggestions. you see, you do have a scholarly mind--you understand the profound difference in scholarship that one word can make. don't you find that fascinating? More soon,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 02:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you have my talk p. on your watchlist? I have a message for you there. If not, I'll check back here from time to time.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
You're a speed demon. Glad someone's on top of addressing problems like the removal of the pic from the commons. Weird. Don't personally care for the AK pic--not very expressive nor interesting to me--but not motivated to do anything about it. Got a message from Princetonian who had deleted all the stuff about GG's relationships a couple of weeks ago. Said he thought the relationships section was "better." I was rereading the Schanke bio of MdA and found reliable evidence that they were lovers. MdA states they were in a letter to the currator of the Rosenbach Museum & Library where she sold her papers. Eventually I'll get to that edit. Take good care,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Good MdA adjustment. Every prolific WP contributor should have a good editor, like you, keeping up with his or her writing. Very important in all published work.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Correct guess. You fix all my typos. Per recent edits to G p: I decided to put an end to my timidity (afraid of the deniers) and state the facts. Ironically (or paradoxically--still have trouble with the very complex word irony), this comes after an editor objected to my use of the terms "alleged," and "speculate."-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 02:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought I fixed all the missing pp's. ONe of my goals is to edit something on these damn pages that you don't have fix or correct. You must think I'm an idiot, which I am.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 02:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "...you meant to do a Cntl-C copy and used a Cntl-X cut instead...." It's true I do cntl-x but don't know what the problem is which is why I continue to do it. Can you briefly explain the problem of doing a Cntl-x? About "only." I do think it is tendentious on this page but not on the G p. Since MdA was without any doubt a lesbian I don't think it's necessary. I include her statement that they were lovers--unequivocal truth. On G p., still a shadow of a doubt so necessary, I think, to include it. I don't know. Maybe this is crazy reasoning. I don't add MdA's letter to the museum currator asserting they were lovers because I just don't to take even more space on her sexuality which, as I've said, should not be central to her legacy. But still important because, as i read today, speculation about her sexuality goes back to 1931! And the question of her sexuality has facinated Garbo watchers since then. Your thoughts?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 02:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Jesus. Don't pay any attention to me. I got everything backward. Added "only" back to GG, which I thought was MdA, for the reasons I cite above. I'm very tired and should have stopped editing earlier, or at least not talked to you! I think the adjustments I've made however are good ones. Don't for get to clarify the cntrl x/c for me. I'm vexed.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 03:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I think I might have made the same cntr x/c mistake again but don't know exactly what the result is. And now it's time to say goodbye to this damn p. for a while. I can't believe I started editing again but I revisited the books again to clarify stuff on MdA and found other stuff to add. That led to improvements because I'm a perfectionist, though you wouldn't know that from all the little mistakes I make that you fix.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 03:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the nytimes cit which I knew you probably would. Unfortunately, I put the wrong one in. (He wrote another in which he writes about her sexuality and says "a same-sex sexual relationship was her obvious choice." That's the one I meant to put in and will have to redo the freakin thing. Will do my best to get it right this time. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 17:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that the event is not notable. I believe the indefinite suspension of chapter at U of TN is significance. This isn't a routine thing which is why it became such a major coverage and I find that the incident meets WP:EVENT Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Please note that you have both reached (or exceeded) the limits of WP:3RR on Pi Kappa Alpha. Please work toward a consensus before making further edits regarding this issue. Might I suggest a request for comments? - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
So let's see what happens when I find the source for my "unsourced characterizations".-- Saidkassem ( talk) 05:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the new editor's understanding of our policies. I removed some OR at Ishmael and raised his edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. I'll ask for a review of Isaac's GA status if the Christian views section isn't fixed. Ishmael I don't know enough about to say if it's an improvement or not. Dougweller ( talk) 08:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your undo to my edit in the Walter Mondale article. Your point about notability would be well-taken if I had created an article about the Naomi Ashley song, but I didn't. I'm just adding some bits to the "popular culture" section of the Mondale article. Mondale is notable, as is the fact that he has become a cultural touchstone of sorts, and the fact that musicians in the 21st centruy are writing songs about him supports the larger point of this section. The section currently is little more than a list and I hope to add some organization, as the question of why Mondale is a touchstone is interesting and there are probably credible articles on that topic. In deference to what I think was the point of the Undo I deleted the brackets around Ashley until such time as someone thinks she warrants an article or at least stub of her own. LakeAtNight ( talk) 16:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit about Diana not being a member of the Royal Family after her divorce? She most certainly was not a member once the H.R.H. was removed. At the time of her death, Diana had no more Royal status than Sarah Ferguson or Mark Phillips now do. 2.219.203.7 ( talk) 19:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Just an FYI, Kendall is not an incorporated community, therefore it is not a "city." Please read over its Wiki article and its sources to familiarize yourself with the community: Kendall. Comayagua99 ( talk)
Fat&Happy -- Curious why you removed the new link at David Amram as "rv personal blog linkspam."
Regards, Tdreyer ( talk) 19:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Tdreyer
My question is a serious one. I've done substantial editing on Wikipedia and I would like to know how you make that determination. The Rag Blog is not a personal blog. It is published by the New Journalism Project, a Texas 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, and features the work of dozens of well-known alternative journalists. There are scores of links to Rag Blog articles and Rag Radio podcasts on Wikipedia.
Tdreyer ( talk) 20:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Tdreyer
Thanks. Appreciate your response and your input. My reading of Wikipedia COI is that it is not considered a "conflict of interest" if the post is legitimate and relevant, and compatible with the "aim of Wikipedia." Tdreyer ( talk) 21:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Tdreyer
Thanks for your careful edits on this. I put back "controversial" because it's also cited in the Times's piece by Bagli and Berger, in the fifth paragraph: "Mr. Ratner, one of the most prominent and polarizing figures in real-estate-mad New York." If you still object, please discuss on the article's Talk page. thanks 208.125.29.157 ( talk) 00:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)