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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Hi. Concerning this article, where we've both reverted Michaelt54's unsupported, unsourced edits (you've done so multiple times), I note that those edits likely fall under the purview of WP:BLP but that you haven't warned the user. I did so once, and he blanked my warning, thus acknowledging it. Now it has turned into an edit war. I just warned him again, this time on 3RR grounds, and if he re-adds the material again I'm going to file a report at WP:EWN. Your continued reverts are probably 3RR-exempt because of the BLP thing, but the back and forth shouldn't continue like this anyway, and sometimes there's collateral damage from noticeboard reports, so I wanted to give you a heads-up. (My guess there'll be an ANI thread in the offing, so all of the above may be moot.) Rivertorch ( talk) 17:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I found the info in a townhall article where Chuck Norris is reviewing Ben Stein's Expelled Movie go look it up yourself. Chuck Norris Supports Inteligent Design movement if he is a christian creationist. My edit is Supported it's in the Townhall.com Article michaelt54 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelt54 ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is my source http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2008/04/22/win_ben_steins_monkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelt54 ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Glenn Beck is a Commentator http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsBvEnaXtgo-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
WHAT?? did you watch the video? he says "i'm a commentator" -- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes i did read the guidelines. In the video Glenn Beck says i'm a commentator not a real journalist-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 00:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The commentators section is not a subcategory its says category on the top of the page. Other people like Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Neil Bortz, Mike Huckabee, and Ann Coulter are in both the American Political Pundits and Commentators categorys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelt54 ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ian.thomson ( talk) 02:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This is your only warning that any more edit-warring on the Norris or the Beck articles will result in a block. Despite this warning, you may still be blocked by a different admin. Please read my comments at WP:ANEW.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 12:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 ( talk) 22:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Stop edit warring on the Bruce Ratner article. You saw that I'd put in the Gawker piece which also labelled him "controversial" and your deletions only make me think you're just opinionated in favor of one side and editing in bad faith. What's with the bit about being "unrelated to surrounding content"? Being one of the biggest lobbyists in the state colors and touches absolutely everything about a developer's work. And your targeting of my edit is hypocritical: What about the lack of transition between the Dodgers move in the 1950s and the Russian oligarch buying up most of the Nets? Why would a Russian born in 1965 in Moscow give two cents about an American baseball team's move before he was born? I didn't delete that because the transition wasn't adequate enough to me. Grow up. Aichikawa ( talk) 03:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Aichikawa, I am not going to edit the Bruce Ratner page. But you might want to reconsider being too prideful of an edit that begins "Ratner (he..." Gulbenk ( talk) 03:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I just want to say that i'm sorry and I have learned my lesson. I will no longer be a problem and I have a favor to ask because I got in trouble for deleting material off of your page, will you delete my posts off of your Page? I want a clean start. I will understand if you dont't want to because i was a problem, but i will no longer be one. Michaelt54 ( talk) 01:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello f&H, I just read a very good (and interesting) article in the New yorker about silent pictures. He writes a lot about Garbo (really more than anyone else) and I'd like to add a few sentences citing the article. Will you help me format the citation? I've looked and can't figure it out. Here's the cit: Denby, David. "'The Artist' and The Art of Silent Acting." The New Yorker, Febuary 27 2012: 74-78. Thanks. Hope you're feeling OK about everything. Did you post the confederate flag on your talk p.?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why my post formatted the way it did--you know, with section title Garbo formatting in the center. Plus, your page is empty. Have you decided to stop editing own WP?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I see. Everything on the page is centered vs. Left justified. ????-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Got all the new stuff done. For a long time I've been trying to convey the unpreceded "sensation" she was during the silent period because of her her eroticism and revelatory acting technique. So I think this material conveys this to some extent. Thank you thank you for your formatting help. To express my appreciation I got rid of that faulty comma :)) I'll expect some changes from you as you read the material.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Pi Kappa_Alpha". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 02:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilogin123 ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It's me again! Hello F&H. I finally found a clear, single source and statement, by noted silent screen expert Kevin Brownlow, to add the erotic element of her early films. I've spent the last hour trying to figure out how to cite it. Can you help? It's from the documentary section at the end of her legacy. Many thanks,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you withdrawing from WP work? You have nothing in your talk p.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Bravo, as always-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC) |
12/6/12 PLEASE READ THIS FIRST: F&H, please explain. I continue to write stuff on your p. that doesn't show up in the preview. what Gives? Again, it may show up when I save it but what's the problem? If you can't read it at the bottom of this section, you'll find my response to your most recent post on my p. in the editing section.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. So, I can promote the Brownlow quote to the body of the p. and eliminate the quote from the cit., right? the cit would end, then, with |minutes=15:27-15:42.}}
Now, I want to get started on correcting what I can in the citation. I've done everything necessary except add the minutes into the film. Since I'm going to promote the quote into the body of the p., I won't need the |quote=blah blah.}} But, I experimented on my talk p. (I don't even understand the sandbox thing. Never helps with citations) and cit didn't show up. So, literally copied the citation as you wrote it but when I previewed or saved, it didn't show as it would on the p. as yours did, as you can see below. What am I doing wrong?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
As for example,:<ref name=TCMBrownlow>{{Cite video|title=Garbo|year=2005|last=Brownlow|first=Kevin|authorlink=Kevin Brownlow|publisher=[[Turner Classic Movies]]|medium=Television production|minutes=15:27–15:42|quote=Appropriate quote from time shown backing up statement.}}</ref>
Thanks. Sorry :( OK. I think it might be more effective to put the Brownlow quote "in-line," as you say,because I can say, "Silent film expert Kevin Brownlow states that...." Do you agree that this would be more powerful? I'm amazed you went right ahead and found the data yourself. Now all I have to do is watch the damn documentary again to get the minutes. :( again. Then, I'll just copy/paste your citation with the minutes.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Done! Thanks so much, F&H. Now it's on to make some improvements to her innovative acting style in the legacy section. This is really what I find most fascinating. So I want to get it right. Statements from a critic and a director in another documentary, GG: A lone Star, AMC, with different kinds of credits so when I get to it I may ask for more help.
As you can see, the rest of my life is pretty boring but I am a musician as well as a WP obsessive.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
READ THIS FIRST: I think I solved the problem. I will now make the change in the G. page and see how it appears. I don't know how to see how it will appear on talk pages though I know you can since you've done it. Anyway, a lot of strange stuff happend, reflected in text below, but you might not want to waste your time reading it. May be back later.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
READ THIS LAST SINCE I HAVE SOLVED THE PROAs promised, I solicit your help again. Now I'm trying to cite another quote from a documentary but the "parameters"? are different. In this one, there's no author. It's a film critic in the video who makes the comment. His name is Ty Burr Here's what I've come up with and of course it doesn't work although it seemed to on my talk p. where I experimented. Weird. The cit information isn't showing up on your page but you'll find it in the edit section. All these mysteries. Perhaps you can explain this one to me while you're at it.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
More text that I wrote to you isn't appearing when I preview. See below. Half the stuff I wrote you in the edit p. isn't appearing when I preview. Although it may magically appear when I save. All of this confirms to me that life is fundamentally unknowable. I'm sorry to involve you in this incoherent insanity. I hope you can follow this.
here's the cit I wrote: [1]
I've never been particularly good on these fine grammatical points, but since Sidney has been dead for ten years is it better to say he "added" rather than he "adds"?
I think I'd eliminate Ty Burr from the citation, either showing it as authorless or, my preference, adding the director, Steve Cole (according to TCM). This could be properly qualified by substituting "|author=Cole, Steve (director)" instead of "|last=Burr|first=Ty".
I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch ( talk) 16:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
F&H, I really need your help on this. Someone is doing great damage to the G page in an edit about ONE friendship during her retirment section. The citations are invalid and s/he's written text about this guy Sam Green than is spent on her entire career at MGM. What should i do?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I've taken his/her stuff out. It's absolutely crazy!! A section the size of her legacy and her MGM career on two friendships she had at the end of her life--and she had much much longer and influential friendships with 3 others throughout her life. These guys were of secondary or tertiary importance. It's her career and legacy, of course, that are important. Who cares about these two guys? Anyway, our correspondence is on the g talk page. I told him to add his edits to the talk p. because of course the conversation makes no sense without it. Do you know how to submit articles, or parts of articles, to WP editors for arbitration? I hope you're still somewhat interested in this project.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, well I think I've made the case on the talk p. for reverting the edits so you can sort of brush aside the stuff I wrote above. I made a complete argument on the G talk page. Now, if you could help me with two WP things:
Thanks! Hope you have some fun over the holidays. I'll probably be back in touch. YOu know me!-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I would have caught de RothSchild (if it merited inclusion) but how did you put the accent over the e? Just curious in case I ever write a French page :)
Trident has been very quiet for the last couple of days. We'll see if he decides my arguments are correct. You know, I'm happy he introduced one of G's friends to the p. (but didn't add such trivia as her bathing nude with him in Fire Island, etc., etc., and more and more). I look forward to additions. But I'm also protective of the basic integrity and balance of the article until the day I force myself to stay away from it. I wish WP would ban me from editing! Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Don't ustand the blocking thing but will deal with it if necessary.
NOW. You thought you were done with me? Never, it seems, though I truly have no more to say about GG. Now, I'm trying to add a much needed citation to the MdA page. It comes from a scholarly journal article in 2000, too early to be posted online. Here's the info, below. As always, I tried to format it myself but failed. Can you help me? Here's the citation:
Thank you much! should I do the <ref and </ref at each end? Yes. I know the answer to that question. They'e always needed
I just don't understand how you know this stuff. I spent quite a bit of time with WP citation links to find the template but got nowhere. Do you have a link for ref cit templates?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 17:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Went to the p. to put in your template and saw that an editor reverted my lame attempt, leaving out the online links you found. I think I'll keep them out since they're not helpful in identifying the author's relevant point. Now I just need to get the essay again for the pp numbers. Still interested in your help in finding cit templates for various sources if you have time. Or perhaps you just figure it out?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 17:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't know what the 45 means. Not 45th issue "overall" since the journal, I just learned, has been published, 3 times a year as you note, since 1976, so that would mean oa 36th. The very reliable Project Muse identifies the date as 2000 so that's good enough for me. It's possible that 1) it's the 45th issue that's online and 2) the hard copy was published in 2000 and the web version in 2001. Typical web confusion about pub dates. Thanks VERY much for the WP links for cit templates. Much of it still confusing and hopefully I won't be citing anything for a while. One more question. How do you preview a citation you've drafted on a talk or sandbox p. before you put it in the article? Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Per legitimacy of the feminist perspective. White’s is a critical study but that’s what most studies of people are-biographies and so forth. Thus, I think her assertion about the allusions is legitimate. It is not a feminist perspective in this part of her article it’s an objective evaluation of MdA’s book she needs to give in order make her overall argument. The problem with this matter is that, as I’ve stated in the article, MdA has been brutally misrepresented in virtually every description of her that I’ve read and I’ve read quite a lot. There’s a dearth of accurate information about her. Her biographer has straightened the record finally, as I say in the article. She’s usually portrayed, as this guy says, as “a perverse psychopath” and he’s right. Typically people refer to her autobio, e.g. as a “tell-all” which is simply wrong. The C. O. author is correct and of course I can’t put my personal understanding in, which is what I’ve done (though no one has requested a citation.) Citing her biographer is difficult in this particular instance because he doesn’t explicitly state that the characterizations are inaccurate it’s just implicit throughout his book. White’s article is the only scholarly source I’ve found that evaluates the biography accurately. Perhaps I should just remove the cit.
Your thoughts? In any case, if it stays in I certainly agree that the C.O. author’s name should be cited. I didn’t catch it. And you make a good argument for putting in the link to the article.
Switching gears, I must be missing something. If you’re testing a cit template in a talk p. or sandbox, which I do, why does it matter if you fail to delete the Reflist before doing a final save? You can just go back and delete it, right? Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thought you had gotten rid of me? I'm Back! I tried your reflist solution (to seeing what a cit. would like like before saving) and I must be missing something but of course I failed. Problem is, I don't know where to put the author's name in the cit. The fact is, as I was saying yesterday to my accountant, "I'm not a computer person." Can you help me by just putting the author's name (White, Patricia) in the ref? Section: Later Life, controversial Autobiography, after "allusions to homosexuality," 2nd line I'd really appreciate it, and thanks, F&H.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much, fh. much yuletide cheer to you.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 17:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Christmas Greetings. Have a good holiday and relax. Kierzek ( talk) 18:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi fh, happy new year! Hope you're well and had a couple of good times during the holidays. OK. Problem. I checked my watchlist today, as usual, and all the edits had disappeared. Checked 1 day, 1 week, 1 month etc and came up with 0 edits during those time periods. Searched all watchlist material and google. No luck. Can you explain what happened and what I can do about it? Thanks,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Everything checks out as you say. Yes, your message on my talk p. is there. I just don't know why everything was deleted. I could ustand say, everything after a certain time frame. But then, of course, items would have been deleted one or two at time rather than all at once. This appears to be a mystery. Automatic deletion is not listed in the watchlist article and as so often happens, I can't get anywhere with the help link. Oh well, if anything pops into your brainy head, I'm always grateful for it! Meanwhile, best greetings to you,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
OK. Now I'm truly flummoxed. Looking for help, I got to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29/Archive_73#Best_way_to_save_watchlist_items_for_more_than_the_max._7_days.3F I clicked on the little arrow-link (what are those called?) and zap! wham! va voom! my watchlist with the past thirty days of stuff appeared. Still, when I click "my watchlist" at the top of my own page, only your message appears. As mysterious as 3d "printers". I'm hoping you might find this problem to be a interesting challenge to attack :) -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Then maybe you might have an interest in joining WikiProject Gerald Ford! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the life, career, and presidency of Gerald Ford.
We're very much a new project, so you have the opportunity to help form the design and structure of the WikiProject itself in addition to creating and improving content about Ford. You are more than welcome to join us by adding your username under the "Participants" section of our WikiProject page. Everyone is welcome, and you are free to contribute where and when you like.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask a member, and we'll be happy to help you. Hopefully we'll see you around the WikiProject!F & H -
You've edited some of my articles in recent months ( Second Bank of the United States). Take a look at my submission for a new article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Report_on_a_National_Bank
What gives? Do the reviewers have any experience editing US history articles? Or is this pretty standard when an editor submits their first article?
You know, it used to be, when you wanted to "call somebody who cares", it only cost a dime. Regards. 36hourblock ( talk) 22:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This user helped promote Rahm Emanuel to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Rahm Emanuel, which has recently become a GA. -- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
|
University degrees are considered honorary suffixes.
"In real life," names are written in the following format:
Prefix. Given name followed by surname, honorary suffix(es)
(e.g., Dr. Jack Layton, Ph.D.; Dr. Gregory House, M.D.; Mr. Mike Layton, M.A.; etc.)
Why remove the honorary suffixes from "real" individuals? If they have earned them, they have the right to include them in their name, so Wikipedia should display their suffix(es), however minor, in those individuals' biographies.
-- RandomKelvin ( talk) 00:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Im extremely new to Wikipedia, so this is probably the wrong way to go about it, but I just wanted to say that somebody is sabotating your work on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_McCarthy#Legacy page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evighedspanda ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
How about reinstating the text I added -- since it does not refer to anything specific -- but leaving out the photo? Would that work for you? Much of the article is unsourced anyway, so it seems unfair that you would remove my unsourced stuff while letting the bulk of the article stay as is.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, sorry about this [1]. I wish someone had of pointed this out to me earlier because I have been putting the correct article titles in the wikilinks of alot of articles over the last while, to avoid them redirecting. I'll stay away from editing wikilinks now, but what should I do about the other articles I already edited? Do I have to go back and revert my edits? I really don't know, so any advice here would be appreciated. Thanks, and again, sorry. Cmr08 ( talk) 03:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I see you don't like no queero-sexual stuff on your gay icon talkpage to Fred "I like it in the ass, now I hate myself and the world for it" Phelps. Well just so you know I read the BLP page and there is nothing on there that suggests I can't paraphrase what's in the source. The woman claimed his overt hatred of homosexuality, like your own denial to giving it up to Bubba, demonstrates the " the lady doth protest too much". Nevertheless being a barely intelligent inbred southerner you scream "BLP vio" throw your little manicured hands in the air and delete: oh what a prissy queen you are. I see you've been blocked for edit warring - what a nobody IRL you must be!
BTW just so you know - cos I might be smarter than you on my worst day - editing my comments is a violation of WP:TALK because I was paraphrasing the source's assertions not my own. Secondly like every whiny fag cocksucker on this site, when it comes down to it, all you did was take a sanctimonious tone to hide the fact you're really just got a WP:IDL boner. But hey as a redneck you're already denying it to yourself any hows! Have a nice day y'all! 86.176.8.4 ( talk) 17:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see my comments on the above page. Deb ( talk) 20:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Fat&Happy. I've reverted a deletion you made to the Sons of Confederate Veterans article. The content you removed is indeed in the cited source. That source is several pages long, so perhaps you missed it? Expanding the source link (click "See full page" at the bottom of the first page) and then searching for the word "recruited" should take you straight to the relevant portion. I must say, however, that I share your concern about the quality of the source itself. I'll see if I can find additional sourcing, and if not, I'll raise the issue at WP:RSN just to be sure. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 21:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure, glad to take a look. Disagreements are cool; it's all in how one treats other people. I've always found you an exemplary editor and I'm happy to be a colleague. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 01:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Please don't disrupt articles to make a point. You can discuss the issue on the talk page, but you're not going to get your way by edit warring, and certainly not by having a temper tantrum. I'm inclined to agree with some of your points, but if you persist in disrupting the article, I will lock it. There's no need to panic; everything will work itself out in time. Discuss the issue instead of edit warring, not in addition to it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I've mentioned your name at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Joe McCarthy.3BMcCarthy Army hearings. Acroterion (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, JohnKAndersen ( talk) 03:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
Hi Mr. Fat&Happy, I am looking for volunteers to re-create the link below for all 196 countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States The goal of this project is to map out the global economy. Here is the project page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabber091 ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fat&Happy,
I dont know how to send you a message, you will be able to delete that after if you want. I have seen that you reverted the changes I made on the continent page. I have spend my day reading the talk page because of the issue raised by the Oceania/Australia issue.
It seems Australian are taught that Oceania does not exist, that Australia is their continent and that the Pacific Islands do not belong to any continent. They are right in a way, because there is a geological continental crust plate which is called Australia. But we don't want to use the geological definition of a continent in that page. If so, there are 14 major continental plates and 40 minor ones and we would have to list them all. Zealandia (continent) is one of them.
On the other side, the rest of the world outside of Australia, including Pacific Islands people, are taught that their continent is called Oceania and not Australia. All the countries in the world have to be located in one continent, because continents are divisions of the land in 6 to 7 parts (webster's definition).
I said all of this in the talk page.
The changes I have made are coherent with the third opinion requested to Wikipedia for that question: put the 2 names Australia/Oceania. I added two definitions of what is a continent (from classic dictionaries) and illustrated the concept of continent as a division of the world with the French case. Those last things are not subject to controversy, only the name of the last continent. So you should let me edit everything except for the Australia/Oceania thing.
But I think that it is fair to let both names given there is a controversy and no consensus for australia.
Best Adrien16 ( talk) 17:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Edit explanation: "accurate representation of what the cited source considered noteworthy)" - agreed.
That provides the actual flavor of his comments, which "Breyer stated that based on the values and the historical record, the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated and that history supports his and the other dissenters' views in District of Columbia v. Heller" does not. It also makes it clear that Breyer believes the judiciary should legislate.
Wimania ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I see you deleted the relevant info that Crowder DID release the unedited video within days of the complaint, and put back in the Prosecutor's later quote that included speculation rather than the original, official quote. I added back in that Crowder released the unedited video and based on that the Prosecutor would not bring charges, without any extra opinion or spin added. The editors who have spent months, literally, working on this page and are most invested are happy with the wording. It gives the facts without leaning pro or con either way. If you disagree, please use the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steven_Crowder and/or the noticeboard page that resulted in a consensus after a long, arduous process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVN#Including_union_affiliations_of_prosecutor_who_refused_to_charge_union_members_with_assault.2FSteven_Crowder Thanks JohnKAndersen ( talk) 09:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
FH, I was just reading the sadly dreadful Carole Lombard p. and saw you had made an edit. Coincidence! So, just thought I'd check in and say hi. Take care,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I got that a little goofed up. Thanks for fixing it. Sorry to make you fix it twice. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 22:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Play-Doh; 00:47 . . (+1,081) . . Philkon (talk | contribs) (→Cultural impact: I added about a dozen references to the story told about Play-Doh in this movie, so 71.234.215.133 / Fat&Happy will stop deleting it as unsourced and irrelevant) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philkon ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Edits you have made have been mentioned by me at a request for comment on the Play-Doh article. 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 01:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm just wondering why you reverted a correction I made to Prince Harry of Wales. Thanks. Inglok ( talk) 01:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Fat&Happy, You may wish to look at this articles recent history. A editor from New Zealand, with a rather odd history, seems intent on making unreferenced changes, trivia and placing his name at the start of the article. If this carries on, I will take it to an admin and hope this meets with your approval? Regards, David J Johnson ( talk) 18:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Oops, my bad! Thanks for the revert - that is what I thought I was doing, was back to non-capitalized, I had it backwards!! We're on the same page! That's why I tried to quote the guidelines, because I thought they had done it wrong and HAD included the capitals!! Thanks! ChristensenMJ ( talk) 23:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not happy with your reversing of my edit to Encyclopedia Britannica. Americans do not equate with citizens of the United States of America. Please develop your point to me. Thierry Le Provost ( talk) 00:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thierry Le Provost ( talk) 02:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I counted 33 items in this table, and the lowest one has around 10% of the casualties of the highest. Is this list creep? Perhaps we should either a) Choose a semi-random number of items for the list (10? 20?) or b) choose a semi-random "total casualties" cutoff (10,000?). Tks. • Serviceable† Villain 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Anytime I use {{cite news}}
I feel like a child kicking over an ant hill. I get to watch everyone come out and fix stuff.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Fat and Happy, As you are much better versed in BLP, I was wondering if you could comment on my posting on the talk page of Daryl Katz. I was seeking to include the names of his children and parents but apparently it is in violation of WP:BLPNAME. I have edited a few biographies and it seems to me that names of parents and children are nearly always included if properly sourced. Anyhow, your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks Patapsco913 ( talk)
children=
parameter with "1 son, 1 daughter";Katz is married to Renee Gouin, the daughter of businessman Jean Ivan Gouin and his wife Carol. [2] They have two children, [3] twins Harrison and Chloe . [4] [possibly substitute "They have twin children, a son and a daughter."]
Oh my god fh, you were with me when I was trying to archive this old text. I was making the archive, no. 3, and made a mistake with the slash. I had cut the text to put in the archive and then cut the mistaken archive link so I couldn't get the original pasted back on. How on earth did you fix this? Thank you so much. I'm going to create archive 3 and get off all the stuff that's been there forever.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Shit! I made a mistake again. Wouldn't archive. I've archived my talk p. so I don't understand what mistake I made this time. Will you create an archive 3? I don't want to blow it a third time. Thank you.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Weirdly the last conversation moved from the bottom to the top of the talk p. This is the section that should be kept, I think, on the p. Thanks for saving me again.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, You removed Steve Reevis from the list, noting lack of reference. I re-inserted him in the list with a reference to his films on IMDb. I had figured that since Steve Reevis link on wiki lists reference to both his Blackfoot heritage and his films, that an additional reference was not necessary. I hope it is now satisfactory for you. :o) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Time River ( talk • contribs) 08:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Larry Silverstein may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hayden Panettiere may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I left a message on Talk:Anthony_Weiner#Website_picture_mistake for your recent deletion. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 22:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
WARNING has been placed on the Talk:Anthony_Weiner#Website_picture_mistake, please refrain from any further deletions, though reasonable and WP:RS edits are as always welcomed. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 03:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
You need to stop reverting my edits and engaging in an edit war. I have already reported you to a number of administrators, and they said that if you continue this behavior, they will block you!!!!!! 71.72.24.51 ( talk) 22:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry!!!!!! My Bad!!!!!! Please be patient with me because I am new at this!!!!!!! 71.72.24.51 ( talk) 23:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jennifer Aniston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mr. & Mrs. Smith ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anthony Weiner sexting scandal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily News ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Your revert, in this article. What 'copyvio' did you revert exactly?-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 22:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Arggggh. Very boring correcting multiple errors in an article.Hope you're well.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 15:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
I just discovered that you rolled back one of my contributions, here...Can you prouve, with another source, that Marlene Dietrich came american citizen in 1939 and not 1937 ? I see in the official site that it was in 1937.
Thank you. -- Orikrin1998 ( excuse my bad english, I'm french) 14:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Checked out Nomads in the Sedentary World on Amazon, Didgori is mentioned on pages 47/48 but there is no citation of 210K casualties.(I did a search in the book for Didgori) Regards-- Woogie10w ( talk) 00:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Southern Poverty Law Center may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 05:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ronald Lauder may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi fh, I saw the two edits made by you and jonxwood but I can see no difference whatsoever in the previous/current versions of either. Can you explain this what you changed? This seems to happen regularly, if infrequently, and I've never understood. Thanks,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm back! An error message has appeared at the end of the references section on the GG p. Any ideas?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Fine work, FH. I read your edits twice and can't figure out what you did though. And of course don't waste your time trying to explain it to me. Not sure we need the cit. after "Despite her popularity as a silent star...." since this is made clear throughout the section. Also, Photoplay based it's conclusion on amount of fan mail received by stars--not exactly an empirical study. Curious. Why did you cut out our discussion on your talk p.? Don't have to answer that if you don't want to. Don't have to do anything you don't want to!-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
based "its" conclusion. I see one thing you did was change title and add refharv. Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
ref=harv
allows proper use of the sfn template; as listed on Amazon, it looks like the last part is the name of a series of which the book is part, not actually part of the book title, so I used the template's separate series=
parameter, the main effect of which seems to be a lack of italics on that portion.
Fat&Happy (
talk) 19:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Please see the description at File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1974-082-44, Adolf Hitler im Ersten Weltkrieg.jpg. -- John ( talk) 20:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello bro, how long should a citation needed note be left on the page before the uncited claims can be deleted?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
p.s. Curious. Approx how many articles are you significantly involved with at any time? What draws you to a particular subject? You seem to be all over the map.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Your removal of Otto Frank from the category of "Holocaust survivors" and "Nazi concentration camp survivors" was illogical and unnecessary. Mr. Frank rightfully belongs in both categories, regardless of - as you put it - redundancy. Engines On ( talk) 02:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It's unfair to Otto Frank to have others, such as Primo Levi, accorded both categories. If you leave Primo Levi's "Holocaust survivors" category intact, while removing Otto Frank's, how is that justifiable? I strongly believe that both men should have both categories, but if you insist on removing Frank's, then you should remove Levi's. Engines On ( talk) 02:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with Gandhi House - I am doing a few in Joburg so do feel free to tidy, add or correct. Any idea where we might find a picture? Victuallers ( talk) 13:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC) |
Seems to me this cartoon is revelatory of the Big Lie always used against any third-party effort in the U.S.: that it somehow undermines our democratic republic and is thus giving aid and comfort to totalitarians. -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, my contributions of specific editorial cartoons to external links were not in the spirit of linkspam as I understand it. These links went to primary sources from a university collection that are illustrative of the entries and the cultural context. I made these edits in the spirit of improving the entries, and feel that they stand up in quality to many of the other external links. I was thinking that anyone interested in the subject matter would welcome the ability to link to an editorial cartoon from that time period about the subject. Not only does it reflect a point of view but also demonstrates through primary source documentation the public notoriety and impact. In addition to the value that editorials have, the cartoons also contain additional visual information useful for understanding the time period. I did add quite a few yesterday afternoon and apologize if they caught you by surprise or if my contributions were ill-conceived. If I'm reading the timestamps correctly (a big if), it appears you removed these as linkspam in about 16 seconds. Did you have time to follow any of the links to look at the source material? Jghapher ( talk) 13:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not introduce talk page (much less mainspace) sections with the same name, as it is an inconvenience for linking to sections. I suppose someone from redneck/hillbilly country and boasting of it on their user page naturally won't be bright enough not to err the same blunder twice. GotR Talk 15:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
For your award winning work on the Greta Garbo page. Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC) |
'DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT.'DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT.'DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT.'DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slim&Angry ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi FH, question about the filmography. My problem is that the intro just repeats stuff in the GG p. It's not drawing many readers so I raise the same question. Should it comprise a separate p.? Even though I spent several hours correcting all the mistakes this editor made (which I'm still still doing on the main p.) I'd like your thoughts on whether it should just be moved back. As for protocol, should it stay since an editor made the not insignificant change? Should I raise it on the talk p.? Problem there is that no one contributes. incidentally, I received a message from a user named Betty Logan in which she said this editor had been blocked twice for the extent of his/her false assertions on other pp. Should we revert to a previous version, she asked, even though many changes had been made since that several day period in early June? I told her I had corrected most inaccuracies and that the sections s/he messed up are now legit.) When I saw all the mistakes, i probably should have just reverted myself, though s/he did contribute some interesting tid-bits. Blah blah blah. Thanks for your patience in reading the endless messages I write.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Betty Logan
in the search box, you'll see a whole slew of sub-pages for things she's been working on. Don't know how accurate/current that "semi-retired" message on her talk page is.Well, opened up wp to find a little red box near my username at the top of the p. Clicked on it and ended up at a B L p. with "a whole slew of sub-pages for things she's been working on." Nothing related to my message to her. Incomprehensible stuff. So I suggest setting up the merge discussion you discussed. Whaddya say? Then, if there's no discussion, which I predict, we can figure out how to get an admin to put the filmography back.
Oh yes, I'm almost certain my Randolph family was a FFV. My father had the all the geneological papers going way back. Other side of my father's parents also from VA but if I give you the name you'll have mine! Anyway, that side was ruined by the war. Lost everything. My grandfather started with nothing. Don't know about the Randolphs. Seemed to be real aristocrats, you know, slave-owning. Don't know anything about the Georgia family. Anyway, I'm second generation northerner.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
well, unfortunately, that little link on the top of the G p. that says something like "redirected from gg filmography" only appeared once and of course then I goofed and I was gone with the wind, where the answer my friend is not blowing. Thanks for spending all the time writing it up because I'll keep trying. Some kind of bug I guess. I support your decision to delete the redirect.
I just saw an excellent film with Jude Law, Renee Zellwiger (sp?), and N Kidman about a Southern deserter. Excellent and very powerful, I think, although Nicole pretty boring, as usual. Will be back in touch when I get the link again. You can archive this p. if you want cuz I copied your directions in a word document and it's turning into one of our endless existential pursuits.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing the issue I had with the use of "handsome" in it's current context. You are heading in the right direction but not quite there.
Let me give you an example. Let's say there was an article that said that Arnold Schwarzenegger was described as muscular when he became Mr. Olympia. Now if I showed a picture to anybody I met, regardless of where they came from, they would have to honestly say Arnold was Muscular at that time. If I could travel in time, an honest answer from anybody would be the same, he is muscular at the time of Mr. Olympia.
Handsome is much more subjective. If I took a photo of FDR at the time of his marriage around the world, would I get the same results? Would Asians or Africans universally agree that FDR crossed the threshold of handsome? Would people past and present agree as well? The point is handsome is a very debatable term.
Who says FDR is handsome? The author of FDR's biography says so. That's all we know. There is no context. Because the term handsome is subjective, unlike social and charismatic, it should not stand on it's own.
If we knew what context Mr. Burns (the biographer who is cited) decided that FDR was handsome, then it could be worked in. For example, perhaps leading periodicals of the time described FDR as handsome.
Burns, to the best of my knowledge, is not a noted expert in what makes a man handsome. Saying FDR is handsome because Burns is cited does not make FDR, in fact, handsome.
To make the sentence factual requires either stating how Burns arrived at his characterization or striking the use of the word handsome. If you have that reference, that would be fantastic, but I suspect it's not in many households these days.
Jtgelt ( talk) 02:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)jtgelt
Why remove the dot? it is the end of the sentence. Jiawhein ( talk) 04:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi FH, 1) as I ustand, there's more oversight of WP articles than in the past. Is this true? If so, what are the instruments used? 2) I read the statements on you talk p. by slim&angry. did you make a complaint? If so, how? or was it a bot that picked up this person's harassment and then blocked his/her talk p.?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I was checking through your archives to check out our GG stuff for fun. God! What we wrote could easily comprise a book. So many different issues and levels of our epic conversation. (No comment on why I decided to devote precious time pursuing this line of inquiry, and why I'm continuing now. Could it be...procrastination? Nahh. Scholarly intrigue.) I started drifting in the fifth archive I think. But, we could publish it in academic press for scholars to read as an example of a long wiki collaboration and virtual friendship, both literary and oral communication (we "talked"). Good possibilities here for primary research for a dissertation. Kidding of course but academics do write about the most bizarre things. How many subspecies of one species of worms in the world. their mating habits. (do they mate?) Our work would be more interesting than THAT, I would think. You even talked occasionally about being in a bad mood which would add narrative electricity.
Still no sign of the link to separate filography section. Did you remove the article?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW. If you still haven't seen any G films, you should check out A Woman Of Affairs, a silent. One of her "greatest" performances. Wed. 7/10, 9:45 am, TCM.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi again. I appear to have been blocked from editing articles yet there's no information about this on either my talk or user p. I can't imagine why I would be blocked. I realize I'm not blocked from writing you. Any ideas?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 15:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Strange. Just learned that if I click on "edit source," which comes up upon clicking "edit," I can edit. Any ideas?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 16:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of events named massacres may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Ruth Westheimer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- IIIraute ( talk) 00:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to California may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Fat&Happy - You've edited a number of the articles I've posted, and my thanks. Can you take a look at Era of Good Feelings INFOBOX and fix the script that's showing up on the page - it's a mess. I honestly can't seem to figure out what's wrong with my methods.
36hourblock ( talk) 19:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I've been following your edits and I notice you're experienced and have a solid comprehension of Wikipedia's policy of parent and child categories. User:Edenc1 keeps reverting the edit I made on the article Joshua Kushner since he insists that the child category of "Category:American Jews" AND parent category "Category:American people of Belarusian-Jewish descent" belong in the same article. I like you to tutor him on Wikipedia's policy and concepts of parent and child categorization. Thank You. Backendgaming ( talk) 22:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I'm User02062000. Yesterday in the article 'List of sovereign states by date of formation' I have deleted Taiwan section because it is not de jure recognised. OK, you said that Taiwan is listed as a sovereign state by Wikipedia. Yes, it is. However, it is not recognised by international community. OK, you are right: it is listed, on the de facto basis. But there are 11 such states (see List of sovereign states), and, on your criteria, it must be listed too! And the State of Palestine is de jure recognised and listed as sovereign! We must create sections for these states! Because your point of view is not correct! You include Taiwan, with de facto independence and recognition from 23 states, but you do not include Kosovo, with de facto independence too but recognition from more than 100 states! Both Kosovo and Taiwan are listed (on de facto basis, of course) and must be included! User02062000 ( talk) 05:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. Bye! User02062000 ( talk) 12:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey my friend, was just visiting the Dylan p. and there you were. You're everywhere! See you see soon,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Got it but not going to bother. I've got better things to do that deal with that.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
LOL!!!-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Good afternoon. Comments above.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Always a pleasure. Will probably see you soon in my WP wanderings and will likely have technical questions. Am most satisfied with my WP attempt at rehabilitating the reputation of de Acosta who has generally been portrayed as a "perverse psychopath" (her biographer). My account, pieced together with all the G biographers along with the recent MdA biography, will, I hope, contribute to gay and lesbian history. After the DOMA ruling, this history will surely increase its still slim evidentiary status.
My next goal is to write the GG biographers and point out their errors along with their anti-MdA bias. This includes even Schanke who's mediocre biography of MdA doesn't acknowledge that only 87 of G's amazing 181 cards, letters, and telegrams over 30 years were permitted to be seen by the public. And so his skewed analyses are based on incomplete evidence. Incredibly sloppy research. If I found this information (in the NYT) her biographer certainly should done more rigorous sleuthing. This seemingly small bit of information changes the ways we think about their relationship. Astonishing that none of the critics and journalists (at least those I've read) who've written about the content of these letters bothered to find out how many letters there were (cited in 2 definitive G biographers who demoted the information into footnotes!) All drew conclusions based on incomplete evidence. You see, I'm a scholar who's never going to get promoted because of my fixation on these two fascinating figures in international culture. Blah blah blah.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
A couple of short responses to your most recent comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, can't find your short responses. Could you check Graham's money values change in the "Golden Age icon section"? I'm getting a much higher 2013 value of her 1932 $275,000.00 salary than s/he she does but am bad at math.
btw, I see I'm under surveillance by this fellow! Why do you suppose-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)???
4 × 275,000 = 1,100,000
.16 × 275,000 = 4,400,000
.Thank you for the link to the MoS. But I can't find a section there that deals with the format for listing birthplace. Am I missing it? Thanks. EvaristoAugello ( talk) 04:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a note to say I didn't mean to overturn your last edit at Shooting of Trayvon Martin. I've been trying to make an edit there for the past 10 or 15 minutes but each time have been blocked as a result of edit conflict or some system or network wackiness. So please excuse my having erased any grammar/punctuation changes you had just made. Dezastru ( talk) 07:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
May I ask why you are rolling back the external links I recently added to an impartial historical resource (other than, perhaps, because the word "progressive" is in the title?) You clearly reverted the changes before taking the time to examine what was being linked to. kevincmurphy ( talk) 19:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a new proposal on the table at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_11#Template:PD-NJGov for a modified template. If you have the chance, could you please review it? DavidinNJ ( talk) 14:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Re: Janne M. Sjödahl being in both Category:Swedish Latter Day Saints and Category:Swedish Mormon missionaries. In my experience, we almost never remove a Latter Day Saint by nationality category because it is "redundant" to a Mormon missionary by nationality category. In part, this is because being a Mormon missionary is not terribly defining for many Latter Day Saints. But it also avoids the "ghettoization" issue of articles being pushed to the furthest possible subcategory, which has been discussed quite extensively at WP:CFD lately due to the moving of many articles into "FOOian women writers" categories at the expense of moving them out of "FOOian writers". After the whole blow up with the "exposé" article in the NY Review of Books, the consensus seems to be that some technical redundancies in category application are desirable. I think this is a case where that would be accepted. (Do I still get that 25 cents?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, please refrain from pushing your views on Wikipedia. I understand that you identify strongly with and support the values of the former illegal state: The Confederate States of America which was founded on the principals of racism and slavery. Since these are extremist and reactionary positions in our modern society, I recommend you think carefully about whether your contributions truly advance the goals of Wikipedia. Thank you.
Best,
AnonWikiCitizen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.129.35 ( talk) 03:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to give you a heads up on your t.p. that I replied in detail re. Carmen Electra on the article's talk page concerning images, several of which caught my interest for the article:
Also, I'm fine with our cropping the #1 image, if that's the one we decide to go with, but I wonder if you would handle that, as I don't know how to losslessly-crop and would hate to make a mess of it. Thankfully, the images are all licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and they all come from the same Commons user and photographer who was present at the event where Carmen was captured in all her 2013-splendor (wow!). I do wish the ones of her singing were more flattering and devoid of other performers, however, but oh well. Anyway, I'll look to hear from you wherever - here, on the article's talk page or on my tp. Cheers! Az x2 20:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It was taken from IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000197/bio The information was pretty clear in his bio. I don't know how to add references, but would like you to know that I didn't just make it up. Lawrence142002 ( talk) 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Lawrence142002
Hi Fat&Happy, thanks for your ongoing feedback. Wanted to let you know I made the change to Carmen Electra and went with the image #3 we all agreed on. I respond in detail on the article talk page, where I again ask you and user:Tsui for additional feedback concerning the article's second image. If you could respond there, that would be great and I'd appreciate hearing from you again. (Can't say enough how nice it is to get near real-time feedback on a proposed change!!) Cheers! Az x2 16:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Whew. this has been a workout. I've made every argument I can possibly make and they're all legitimate. I always knew, as I said to you, that this section would arouse opposition and disgruntlement. To be expected. But this person clearly has an agenda. Mine is truly to protect the integrity of the article. How are you?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi FH, no comment on my recent queries? Everything OK?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 16:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm gratified that Rivertorch put the matter in a clear, current, perspective with ustanding of the methodological difficulties involved in writing about GBLT people. A big relief to me since no one else seemed to be the least bit interested in this critically important point (interesting in itself)--which I discussed twice. A historian starts with a question about which there is no, little, or muddled understanding. But it's virtually always the case that research in the humanities and social science begins with an intuition. Scholarship, then, can never be entirely objective. Furthermore, "objectivity" is only something we can aspire to but never fully achieve because it's always embedded a priori in paradigms of thought and action. Blah blah blah. Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I understand why you reverted my edit on Macau, I am disappointed though that you did not also fix East Asia which was the source of my edit. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 03:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm going to take the LGBT p. off my watchlist so if anyone responds to your GG question, will you alert me on my talk p.? I'm also going to stop watching your p. if and until we strike up the band again. Macao. You are indeed amazing. Have a good weekend. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
We must be linked by ESP. You made almost exactly the same changes to Sergey Aleynikov that I was going to make. Except you made them at the exact same time I was making them (within the same 5 minutes window).
AaronJ at mst.edu (
talk) 01:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carlo Gambino may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 23:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
First, I'm not quite sure why you are continuing to remove referenced factual content on the T4 article.
As an aside, please remove the racist 'Confederate' flag from your user page. That's no different from decorating your page with Swastikas. See [2]. Wikipedia policy says "you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute." -- User:Poet of Freedom —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Just for your general brilliance. Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC) |
Greetings my friend, I'm trying to edit the Queen Christina (film) page and need your help. An editor states that QC didnt do as well at the box office as the studio expected. Problems: 1) incorrect, 2) source is a tiny review from a contemporary and insignificatn web publication that makes no mention of the studio's expectation. But, every time I try to change it, I get a red error in the reference section.
Here's the sentence and ref: "Although it did not perform as well as the studio had expected, [5] Thanks for your help, -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Considering the discussion on the talk, it is highly inappropriate of you to revert without explanation on the talk where a number of us are discussing changes. Furthermore, due to ArbCom restrictions, you should be careful in this regard. If you continue to do so, I will alert admins per WP:BLP. Laval ( talk) 01:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The earlier 'UK' before Boris Johnson, helped to distinguish him from a London, Ontario Mayor. Beingsshepherd ( talk) 15:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
Your revert of my edit is quite right. I was looking at North Carolina. Thanks! 108.115.140.103 ( talk) 01:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. In line with your zealous work on reverting bad edits, you just now reverted my edit to Robert Jeffress, based on "false equivalence." You seem to be a pretty active Wikipedian, so I'm ready to assume you're right and I was wrong. That said, would you please explain to me why the equivalence was false? (I thought about just adding "Critics of Catholicism" to his page, but no such category exists. It seems to me that in line with the current policy on bias categories (that, e.g. "anti-Catholicism" or "anti-Semitism" may not be used in biographical articles), that there's now an asymmetry whereby Jeffers' anti-LDS or anti-Muslim statements can be categorized, but not, e.g., anti-Catholic ones. Do you think the best solution for removing the asymmetry is to create a "Critics of Catholicism" category? It seemed to me that that would just duplicate the problems that have plagued the "anti-Catholicism" category. Hence my deletion of the two "Critic" categories in an attempt to remove the logical asymmetry. As you've reverted my edit, I assume you have a different perspective. What do you think ought to be done about the category issue?
Many thanks, Rinne na dTrosc ( talk) 16:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand your reason for removing the category "Firearms related groups", but if anyone (a reporter, someone in academia, or just a general reader) is looking for a list of these groups (pro-, anti-, otherwise) they will not see this group unless they dig into the sub-category. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 03:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Impressively varied list of articles that you've edited.... wow! Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 05:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
(Generic warning:)
Your recent editing history at Ron Paul shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being as experienced as you are, I truly feel this is inexcusable. I began a discussion at Ron Paul's talk page, which really is something YOU should have done. Please join the discussion before reverting again, or I will be forced to report you for edit warring. PrairieKid ( talk) 06:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi FH, it's been a while! Hope you're well. I was looking for a reference and noticed a problem with fn 37. Can you check it out? Smooth sailing to you,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the fn, my friend. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, why is your p. so often empty? You used to have a lot of threads going that were visible to all. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello User:Fat&Happy I do not understand because they leave append in the first paragraph of article information from Tina Turner as The Queen of Rock and Roll, knowing that is important information.
As should be the first paragraph of Article:
Anna Mae Bullock (born November 26, 1939), known by her
stage name Tina Turner,
[11]
[12] is a
singer, dancer, actress, author, and choreographer, whose career has spanned more than half a century, earning her widespread recognition and numerous awards. Born and raised in the United States, she lives in
Switzerland and holds
Swiss citizenship. His career developed over fifty years ago, one of the most significant cultural icons of the rock, he is often referred to as "The Queen of Rock".
-- Artistofrockandrollartist ( talk) 04:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to truncate or remove the caption, and/or adjust the size. I thought this flag would go well with (and complement) your stars and bars. Anyway, if you don't like it, feel free to delete, but don't let it touch the ground. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
no archives yet ( create) |
hi fat&happy, you removed a whole paragraph from the article donald rumsfeld. would you be so kind to explain your reasoning a little more here? -- ThurnerRupert ( talk) 11:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi F&H, an editor has made an interesting change in the number of nominations for A wards G received. Perhaps you've seen them. I recommended that s/he cite the change (sounds legit) at the beginning otherwise someone will likely change it back since nobody knows about this, including all the authors I've read. Can you go to my talk p. and help this person with the sourcing?
Meanwhile, I miss you! Hope you've been having a fine weekend. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
You brazenly removed all of my edits to pages of politicians whose current employment is now in lobbying. My source is the Center for Responsive Politics: http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z. What they're currently doing is by definition notable and is also in line with the pages of several others - Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, and Tom Daschle, to name a few. I will be reinserting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.101.240 ( talk) 17:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at WP:BLPN involving recent edits by 68.180.101.240 at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#User:68.180.101.240_and_lobbyists. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering why you reverted my edit...anyone can "receive" a pardon, it only takes effect when it is "accepted." Knoper ( talk) 02:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Fat&Happy. I appreciate your diligence on verifying WP rules on edits. I'm flying fast during breaks at the editing day job and sometimes apply the other style book.
Unrelated question: where did you get the heritage banners on your user page? I like them, and would like to post some. Desertroadbob ( talk) 11:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the information about templates. I'll check those resources out when I find the time. Your Irish and CSA modification will come in handy, as will the standard Scottish, German and USA templates. Do they have one for Celts in general?
Back to the main topic: Rather than exchanging reverts, let's talk. I'm coming at the punctuation from a modified AP style (admission of bias). But, regardless, most of the instances seem to meet the intent of the first rule in WP:LQ: the period or comma is a logical extension of the thought and likely to have been in the original source (or its transcript). What is your thinking? Desertroadbob ( talk) 15:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The edit you have made on the United States Armed Forces is wrong. US conscription was abolished in February 1973. Please don't make an edit like that again. ( Chipperdude15) ( talk)
You seem extremely active on a wide variety of topics. I've made a dozen or so edits in 6 months. I see that you've done much more than that just today.
Perhaps you could tidy up the page:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Thomas
It needs a disambiguation section and 3 separate entries for
(1) The Australian Writer.
(2) The Welsh Singer (I put some info in the Talk section).
(3) The Canadian native rights political activist.
From 86.159.40.236, alias 86.167.187.81, alias 86.169.93.78
86.159.40.236 ( talk) 05:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
"The place of birth, residence and/or death of people who were born, lived or died before 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland should be given simply as "Ireland" (my emphsis), Sorry Fat&Happy, but Neeson isnt that old! Mind you, you have shown a slight missed point post-1922 isnt clarified. Will get that changed. Murry1975 ( talk) 12:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Thewikiguru1. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Steve Ballmer because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
Thewikiguru1 (
talk) 02:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey Fat Ass, how is it irrelevant to point out the racism rooted in the town Helms grew up in, the racist justice system his father embodied by abusing blacks in front of other blacks, all of this when it says in the article itself as a lawmaker he opposed the Civil and Voting Rights Act, let alone the Martin Luther King legacy he tried to erase by opposing his holiday? just from your profile you look like you fit right with the likes of Helms and the KKK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.88.150 ( talk) 04:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there F&H. Just wanted to check in and send greetings. Just made an adjustment in the GG relationships section that echoes our super charged discussion several months ago about her sexuality. I see you're still checking in. Good! I'm amazed that no one else has edited at all which seems to suggest the article's in good, stable shape. to my delight, I've been detaching from GG and WP editing in general. But if someone crazy comes along, I'll be there! Take care, -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe the book by James Whelan corroborates your edit "...tacitly supported by the United States" as opposed to "supported by the American Central Intelligence Agency" as restored by Abhimanyulele. (Whelan, James R. (1989). Out of the Ashes: Life, Death and Transfiguration of Democracy in Chile, 1833-1988. Regnery. ISBN 978-0-895-265531.) The CIA has also provided a reasonably detailed and credible accounting of its activities before, during, and after the coup at https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/chile/index.html. Claudeb ( talk) 15:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The Japan section presents a "happy talk" listing of parties which have supported Japanese permanent membership, but somehow fails to mention the inconvenient fact that some of Japan's closest neighbors oppose such membership, and so is overall unbalanced. AnonMoos ( talk) 20:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey! Can you please show me the relevant MOS on pull quotes? I can't find any (searching with WP/MOS/HELP quotes/grab quotes/pull quotes). I'd really like to revert (because I like how the quote marks look and signal) but I wanted to check with your first? Thanks. Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 08:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, it looks like you deleted the addition of "parachutage" carpetbagger claiming there is no source. Did you check the link? It is mentioned in the titled. D0kkaebi ( talk) 09:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Fat&Happy, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Italian-American actors, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Significantly different enough category to one deleted 2 1/2 years ago - discuss first. . You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirt58 ( talk) 14:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Fat&Happy I'm JD3rulo, I'm not sure why you changed the pictures I hang up of those singers, they don't have any "forbidden" content, so if you could explain me, please let me a note in my user page. Thanks sweetheart. JD3rulo ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, are you following my edits or is it just coincidence that you've often edited articles shortly after I edit them? XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 03:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
You should really go to the talk page to discuss with others before editing. Lilly Collins was born in Britain so is British. She see's herself as British (because she is) always refers to herself as British and English. The only time she referred to herself as an American she followed straight up with "Even though i'm technically not even an American". She's constantly saying she's British. She just 'lives' in America for 10 or maybe less months a year (depending on work) and she spends 2 months a year back home in Britain. She even calls Britain her home!
I'm Portuguese, was born in Portugal, moved to Britain when i was 10 and have lived in Britain for 17yrs, but I'm still Portuguese whether i like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.38.23 ( talk) 00:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Fat&Happy. From our earlier discussion, I remember that you had an issue with the punctuation in my earlier edit on Alex_Jones, but you were actually OK with changing "over" to "more than". I finally got time to do those, so I'm heading over there and—since our reverts were the last edits—I didn't want it to seem like I was picking a fight. Regards, Desertroadbob ( talk) 01:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, sweetheart, it's me JD3rulo again. Last time you didn't answered me but it's OK, I'm not a resentful person. Why you removed the paragraph I wrote about Jessie J's vocal range?, the right link which validates it is http://vocalranges.blogspot.com but another user let me a notification saying it's not reliable, so I don't understand, what are the sites that all of you consider reliable sources? If you could answer me, please let me a notification or write in my talk page, thanks. Have a nice day! JD3rulo ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I read the headline on your talk page, but your actions do make you look like someone who cares, so...
Anyhoo, you reverted my edit to the American and British English spelling differences#Greek-derived spellings#-ise, -ize (-isation, -ization)#British usage, as "unhelpful argumentation". You may be right in that, but what I was trying to counter, perhaps badly, was the statement higher up that says "many reference works, including the Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, prefer -ise." The problem is that, since Allan's Pocket Fowler's uses, e.g. "realize" not "realise", except in quotations, i.e. follows OUP practise, the existing statement is, at best, disingenuous if not actually a lie. I admit it's probably better to delete the inaccuracy than counter it, but a suitable rewording of what would be left does not leap out at me. So, if you don't like what I did, how do you suggest dealing with the terminological inexactitude that's currently there? Graham.Fountain | Talk 11:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The dominant British English usage of -ise has long been preferred by authorities such as Cambridge University Press, and many reference works, including the Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, prefer -ise.
The dominant British English usage of -ise is preferred by Cambridge University Press. Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage considers either usage to be acceptable anywhere except the US.
rm still non-RS - The Militant is a long operating socialist newspaper and even though I do not agree with their politics, that doesn't invalidate them as a source. Also, Doug Jenness isn't on Wikipedia but he has published several books over the years. [6].
still partisan - this is true but these are allowed on BLP under certain constraints.
still attack page - it is critical of him and this also is allowed under constraints on WP:BLP.
still with no unique resource content from BLP - this is where you lose me. Are you saying there needs to be another RS in agreement with the content of the article from '98? Alatari ( talk) 07:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I added a new section to the article on Discrimination. To wit:
People who use illegal drugs risk imprisonment, loss of voting rights, and face discrimination in areas of employment, housing, and child custody. [13] [14] [15] [16]
{{
cite AV media}}
: Text "audio commentary" ignored (
help)
ArchivesCanada
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).EdmontonJournalReclusive
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Text "
ISBN
978-0-8166-4182-6" ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Text "
ISBN
978-0-8166-4182-6" ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
You removed my addition with the explanation, "punishing illegal actions is called enforcing the law, not discriminating."
I wonder if you might yet conceive it possible could I reword it or reframe it to overcome your objections and thus merit inclusion? Danny Sprinkle ( talk) 16:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFleischman ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Any idea why I got notified you reverted my edit on Abraham Lincoln when as far as I can tell, your edit had nothing to do with mine? VMS Mosaic ( talk) 05:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Sir, If you insert Mr. Ross's biographical information here, it says he is a registered Democrat. However there is no URL to be cited. https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/voterSearch.aspx Kind regards, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterZumthor ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Diptanshu Talk 16:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chris Christie may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I just to let you know, even though I reverted your recent proposal I still appreciate your effort to look for common ground. :-) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Fat&Happy,
I was reprimanded for starting a "revert war" and told to use the "Talk" section before revering. You did not do that. Why? You did not contact me to discuss your concerns with my contribution. Why? You are not being honest. Why?
If Wikipedia allows the blind parroting of "Oswald assassinated JFK", it is doing a great disservice to the reader who has a right to be informed. Not disinformed. Your reverting my justifiable contribution could be considered disinformation, something a true Wikipedian should loathe.
50 years after the incident, as you should know (and I'm quite surprised that apparently you and other contributers here don't), much information has come to light which points to the fact that Oswald did not assassinate JFK. We may never know what role he played exactly. However, it is (or should be) clear now that the statement "Oswald assassinated JFK" is a deceptive untruth.
Please be aware that I have formally asked for mediation to resolve this issue.
Thank you.
4eyes ( talk) 13:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)4eyes
Greetings my friend! I don't suppose that WK is a place for socializing but to hell with that policy for just a moment. The GG p. has been stable for several months now which is gratifying. I still wander around the WK ecosystem but visit GG less frequently. So I just wanted to say hello, I miss you, and I hope you're continuing to make the great contributions you have made to WK over several years. Feel free to say hi on my blank talk p. as you see fit. Take care, your pal cfb-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Detroit Race Riot (1943) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 06:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Glad the GG p. is still on your watchlist. Jersey City? Hmmm. Hope you had a nice thanksgiving. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Would you be willing to provide input on a dispute at Talk:Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative#Discussion_on_parentheticals_versus_longer_statements? It doesn't appear that you've edited this article previously and might be considered a neutral party. Thank you. CFredkin ( talk) 20:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Fat&Happy. I tried to make an edit to the article, which you stated was poorly written. I have attempted to write a new paragraph to try and clarify it. As well you mentioned that I cited poor sources. Upon reviewing the huffington post sources. I concur. I have since added sources from the News corporation "ABC" and will look for other such sources. Does this conform to your desired quality of writing. Please advice. (note this above paragraph is not meant as jest, it is an honest inquiry for advice). May you please explain where I went wrong in my first draft. Also, if you can refrain from just deleting editor's articles before they have a chance to edit the drafts this would serve the interests of our community if us greenhorn writers be given the chance to learn from our mistakes. Of course under mature writer's such as yourself. Again my apologizes if this comes across as a rebuke which is not my intention.
Here is a copy of the new paragraph detailing the so called 'post humourous gay rituals' over the grave of the mother of Fred Phelps: Again it is intended to be a draft, as I am most willing and happy to learn from you. In short I wish to be a better Wikipedia journalist.
(New revised edition to the one you deleted. I concur, that edition lacked descriptive adjectives and adverbs and other such descriptive articles of writing). Sources 175 and 176, are from ABC news.
On July 14, 2013, Members of a Satanic sect called the "Satanic Temple" preformed 'pink mass' rituals over the grave of Catherine Idalette Johnson the mother of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) founder Pastor Fred Phelps. According to Lucien Graves, the church member who preformed the rituals, the ordinances post-humorously transformed the sexual orientation of Johnson from that of heterosexual to homosexual.[175] The ritual was preformed twice as both a lesbian and gay couple were represented. Afterwards, Graves desecrated Johnson's gravestone by exposing his gentiles to the stone.[176] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat ( talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Please stop falsely accusing me of disrupting or vandalizing articles when all I did was make coding text more concise and cleaner. There is no need whatsoever for slashes in "br" things, so stop using "disruptive" or "vandalism" as excuses to revert me. Quite frankly, your insistence on having those slashes is irrational. They function perfectly fine without slashes. Not sure why syntax highlighter says otherwise, but it is mistaken. "br" without slash is a perfectly valid code. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 02:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
</small>
at the end of a paragraph causes it to malfunction for the rest of the article. But it can be useful, and is sanctioned for use in its current form; you have no valid reason for incapacitating it by removal of small bits of otherwise harmless HTML.
Fat&Happy (
talk) 03:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Both of you need to stop this rather idiotic edit war. -- NeilN talk to me 04:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Have you seen this? -- NeilN talk to me 04:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
To Fat&Happy and XXSNUGGUMSXX:
Is either of you able to point to any requirement at Wikipedia to support your position on the specific form of the line-break coding element -- that is, the presence or absence of the slant?
If not, is either of you able to point to any technical reason for which either form is mandatory or better than the other?
If either of you can do so, please do.
If neither of you can do so, then is this question not a matter of personal preference?
If that is true, by what right does either of you seek to impose your personal preference on the other and on the rest of the world?
If one position is correct, and the other is not, then please inform the rest of us, so that we can know – so that we can benefit from your wisdom and knowledge.
In any event, by what authority does either of you hurl those insulting labels – "disruption" and "vandalism" – at each other?
Best wishes to all,
Doc.
DocRushing (
talk) 05:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear F & H - I'm in the process of posting a major edit to Texas Annexation. Can you visit the site and tell what is wrong with the pixel issue on the double image of Calhoun and Upshur. I can't get them to match. Help! 36hourblock ( talk) 21:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
You are a prince! But I won't risk overdrawing on my "ask a favor" account. Kind regards, as always. 36hourblock ( talk) 18:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fat&Happy I just wanted to caution you that you were engaged in an Edit War with Scott Illini. Remember if you violate the 3RR you can be blocked from editing. If you seem to disagree with an editor please discuss the edit on the article Talk page or that users Talk page. I'm just giving you a friendly reminder. Etineskid (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Here's to another year of your endlessand important work on Wiki.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Paul Newman#Contentious edit regarding Newman's mother which you may be interested in contributing to.-- Mrmatiko ( talk) 20:22, 4 January 2014 (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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Hi. Concerning this article, where we've both reverted Michaelt54's unsupported, unsourced edits (you've done so multiple times), I note that those edits likely fall under the purview of WP:BLP but that you haven't warned the user. I did so once, and he blanked my warning, thus acknowledging it. Now it has turned into an edit war. I just warned him again, this time on 3RR grounds, and if he re-adds the material again I'm going to file a report at WP:EWN. Your continued reverts are probably 3RR-exempt because of the BLP thing, but the back and forth shouldn't continue like this anyway, and sometimes there's collateral damage from noticeboard reports, so I wanted to give you a heads-up. (My guess there'll be an ANI thread in the offing, so all of the above may be moot.) Rivertorch ( talk) 17:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I found the info in a townhall article where Chuck Norris is reviewing Ben Stein's Expelled Movie go look it up yourself. Chuck Norris Supports Inteligent Design movement if he is a christian creationist. My edit is Supported it's in the Townhall.com Article michaelt54 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelt54 ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is my source http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2008/04/22/win_ben_steins_monkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelt54 ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Glenn Beck is a Commentator http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsBvEnaXtgo-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
WHAT?? did you watch the video? he says "i'm a commentator" -- Michaelt54 ( talk) 22:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes i did read the guidelines. In the video Glenn Beck says i'm a commentator not a real journalist-- Michaelt54 ( talk) 00:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The commentators section is not a subcategory its says category on the top of the page. Other people like Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Neil Bortz, Mike Huckabee, and Ann Coulter are in both the American Political Pundits and Commentators categorys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelt54 ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ian.thomson ( talk) 02:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This is your only warning that any more edit-warring on the Norris or the Beck articles will result in a block. Despite this warning, you may still be blocked by a different admin. Please read my comments at WP:ANEW.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 12:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 ( talk) 22:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Stop edit warring on the Bruce Ratner article. You saw that I'd put in the Gawker piece which also labelled him "controversial" and your deletions only make me think you're just opinionated in favor of one side and editing in bad faith. What's with the bit about being "unrelated to surrounding content"? Being one of the biggest lobbyists in the state colors and touches absolutely everything about a developer's work. And your targeting of my edit is hypocritical: What about the lack of transition between the Dodgers move in the 1950s and the Russian oligarch buying up most of the Nets? Why would a Russian born in 1965 in Moscow give two cents about an American baseball team's move before he was born? I didn't delete that because the transition wasn't adequate enough to me. Grow up. Aichikawa ( talk) 03:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Aichikawa, I am not going to edit the Bruce Ratner page. But you might want to reconsider being too prideful of an edit that begins "Ratner (he..." Gulbenk ( talk) 03:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I just want to say that i'm sorry and I have learned my lesson. I will no longer be a problem and I have a favor to ask because I got in trouble for deleting material off of your page, will you delete my posts off of your Page? I want a clean start. I will understand if you dont't want to because i was a problem, but i will no longer be one. Michaelt54 ( talk) 01:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello f&H, I just read a very good (and interesting) article in the New yorker about silent pictures. He writes a lot about Garbo (really more than anyone else) and I'd like to add a few sentences citing the article. Will you help me format the citation? I've looked and can't figure it out. Here's the cit: Denby, David. "'The Artist' and The Art of Silent Acting." The New Yorker, Febuary 27 2012: 74-78. Thanks. Hope you're feeling OK about everything. Did you post the confederate flag on your talk p.?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why my post formatted the way it did--you know, with section title Garbo formatting in the center. Plus, your page is empty. Have you decided to stop editing own WP?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I see. Everything on the page is centered vs. Left justified. ????-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Got all the new stuff done. For a long time I've been trying to convey the unpreceded "sensation" she was during the silent period because of her her eroticism and revelatory acting technique. So I think this material conveys this to some extent. Thank you thank you for your formatting help. To express my appreciation I got rid of that faulty comma :)) I'll expect some changes from you as you read the material.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Pi Kappa_Alpha". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 02:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilogin123 ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It's me again! Hello F&H. I finally found a clear, single source and statement, by noted silent screen expert Kevin Brownlow, to add the erotic element of her early films. I've spent the last hour trying to figure out how to cite it. Can you help? It's from the documentary section at the end of her legacy. Many thanks,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you withdrawing from WP work? You have nothing in your talk p.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Bravo, as always-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC) |
12/6/12 PLEASE READ THIS FIRST: F&H, please explain. I continue to write stuff on your p. that doesn't show up in the preview. what Gives? Again, it may show up when I save it but what's the problem? If you can't read it at the bottom of this section, you'll find my response to your most recent post on my p. in the editing section.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. So, I can promote the Brownlow quote to the body of the p. and eliminate the quote from the cit., right? the cit would end, then, with |minutes=15:27-15:42.}}
Now, I want to get started on correcting what I can in the citation. I've done everything necessary except add the minutes into the film. Since I'm going to promote the quote into the body of the p., I won't need the |quote=blah blah.}} But, I experimented on my talk p. (I don't even understand the sandbox thing. Never helps with citations) and cit didn't show up. So, literally copied the citation as you wrote it but when I previewed or saved, it didn't show as it would on the p. as yours did, as you can see below. What am I doing wrong?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
As for example,:<ref name=TCMBrownlow>{{Cite video|title=Garbo|year=2005|last=Brownlow|first=Kevin|authorlink=Kevin Brownlow|publisher=[[Turner Classic Movies]]|medium=Television production|minutes=15:27–15:42|quote=Appropriate quote from time shown backing up statement.}}</ref>
Thanks. Sorry :( OK. I think it might be more effective to put the Brownlow quote "in-line," as you say,because I can say, "Silent film expert Kevin Brownlow states that...." Do you agree that this would be more powerful? I'm amazed you went right ahead and found the data yourself. Now all I have to do is watch the damn documentary again to get the minutes. :( again. Then, I'll just copy/paste your citation with the minutes.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Done! Thanks so much, F&H. Now it's on to make some improvements to her innovative acting style in the legacy section. This is really what I find most fascinating. So I want to get it right. Statements from a critic and a director in another documentary, GG: A lone Star, AMC, with different kinds of credits so when I get to it I may ask for more help.
As you can see, the rest of my life is pretty boring but I am a musician as well as a WP obsessive.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
READ THIS FIRST: I think I solved the problem. I will now make the change in the G. page and see how it appears. I don't know how to see how it will appear on talk pages though I know you can since you've done it. Anyway, a lot of strange stuff happend, reflected in text below, but you might not want to waste your time reading it. May be back later.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
READ THIS LAST SINCE I HAVE SOLVED THE PROAs promised, I solicit your help again. Now I'm trying to cite another quote from a documentary but the "parameters"? are different. In this one, there's no author. It's a film critic in the video who makes the comment. His name is Ty Burr Here's what I've come up with and of course it doesn't work although it seemed to on my talk p. where I experimented. Weird. The cit information isn't showing up on your page but you'll find it in the edit section. All these mysteries. Perhaps you can explain this one to me while you're at it.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
More text that I wrote to you isn't appearing when I preview. See below. Half the stuff I wrote you in the edit p. isn't appearing when I preview. Although it may magically appear when I save. All of this confirms to me that life is fundamentally unknowable. I'm sorry to involve you in this incoherent insanity. I hope you can follow this.
here's the cit I wrote: [1]
I've never been particularly good on these fine grammatical points, but since Sidney has been dead for ten years is it better to say he "added" rather than he "adds"?
I think I'd eliminate Ty Burr from the citation, either showing it as authorless or, my preference, adding the director, Steve Cole (according to TCM). This could be properly qualified by substituting "|author=Cole, Steve (director)" instead of "|last=Burr|first=Ty".
I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch ( talk) 16:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
F&H, I really need your help on this. Someone is doing great damage to the G page in an edit about ONE friendship during her retirment section. The citations are invalid and s/he's written text about this guy Sam Green than is spent on her entire career at MGM. What should i do?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I've taken his/her stuff out. It's absolutely crazy!! A section the size of her legacy and her MGM career on two friendships she had at the end of her life--and she had much much longer and influential friendships with 3 others throughout her life. These guys were of secondary or tertiary importance. It's her career and legacy, of course, that are important. Who cares about these two guys? Anyway, our correspondence is on the g talk page. I told him to add his edits to the talk p. because of course the conversation makes no sense without it. Do you know how to submit articles, or parts of articles, to WP editors for arbitration? I hope you're still somewhat interested in this project.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, well I think I've made the case on the talk p. for reverting the edits so you can sort of brush aside the stuff I wrote above. I made a complete argument on the G talk page. Now, if you could help me with two WP things:
Thanks! Hope you have some fun over the holidays. I'll probably be back in touch. YOu know me!-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I would have caught de RothSchild (if it merited inclusion) but how did you put the accent over the e? Just curious in case I ever write a French page :)
Trident has been very quiet for the last couple of days. We'll see if he decides my arguments are correct. You know, I'm happy he introduced one of G's friends to the p. (but didn't add such trivia as her bathing nude with him in Fire Island, etc., etc., and more and more). I look forward to additions. But I'm also protective of the basic integrity and balance of the article until the day I force myself to stay away from it. I wish WP would ban me from editing! Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Don't ustand the blocking thing but will deal with it if necessary.
NOW. You thought you were done with me? Never, it seems, though I truly have no more to say about GG. Now, I'm trying to add a much needed citation to the MdA page. It comes from a scholarly journal article in 2000, too early to be posted online. Here's the info, below. As always, I tried to format it myself but failed. Can you help me? Here's the citation:
Thank you much! should I do the <ref and </ref at each end? Yes. I know the answer to that question. They'e always needed
I just don't understand how you know this stuff. I spent quite a bit of time with WP citation links to find the template but got nowhere. Do you have a link for ref cit templates?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 17:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Went to the p. to put in your template and saw that an editor reverted my lame attempt, leaving out the online links you found. I think I'll keep them out since they're not helpful in identifying the author's relevant point. Now I just need to get the essay again for the pp numbers. Still interested in your help in finding cit templates for various sources if you have time. Or perhaps you just figure it out?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 17:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't know what the 45 means. Not 45th issue "overall" since the journal, I just learned, has been published, 3 times a year as you note, since 1976, so that would mean oa 36th. The very reliable Project Muse identifies the date as 2000 so that's good enough for me. It's possible that 1) it's the 45th issue that's online and 2) the hard copy was published in 2000 and the web version in 2001. Typical web confusion about pub dates. Thanks VERY much for the WP links for cit templates. Much of it still confusing and hopefully I won't be citing anything for a while. One more question. How do you preview a citation you've drafted on a talk or sandbox p. before you put it in the article? Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Per legitimacy of the feminist perspective. White’s is a critical study but that’s what most studies of people are-biographies and so forth. Thus, I think her assertion about the allusions is legitimate. It is not a feminist perspective in this part of her article it’s an objective evaluation of MdA’s book she needs to give in order make her overall argument. The problem with this matter is that, as I’ve stated in the article, MdA has been brutally misrepresented in virtually every description of her that I’ve read and I’ve read quite a lot. There’s a dearth of accurate information about her. Her biographer has straightened the record finally, as I say in the article. She’s usually portrayed, as this guy says, as “a perverse psychopath” and he’s right. Typically people refer to her autobio, e.g. as a “tell-all” which is simply wrong. The C. O. author is correct and of course I can’t put my personal understanding in, which is what I’ve done (though no one has requested a citation.) Citing her biographer is difficult in this particular instance because he doesn’t explicitly state that the characterizations are inaccurate it’s just implicit throughout his book. White’s article is the only scholarly source I’ve found that evaluates the biography accurately. Perhaps I should just remove the cit.
Your thoughts? In any case, if it stays in I certainly agree that the C.O. author’s name should be cited. I didn’t catch it. And you make a good argument for putting in the link to the article.
Switching gears, I must be missing something. If you’re testing a cit template in a talk p. or sandbox, which I do, why does it matter if you fail to delete the Reflist before doing a final save? You can just go back and delete it, right? Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thought you had gotten rid of me? I'm Back! I tried your reflist solution (to seeing what a cit. would like like before saving) and I must be missing something but of course I failed. Problem is, I don't know where to put the author's name in the cit. The fact is, as I was saying yesterday to my accountant, "I'm not a computer person." Can you help me by just putting the author's name (White, Patricia) in the ref? Section: Later Life, controversial Autobiography, after "allusions to homosexuality," 2nd line I'd really appreciate it, and thanks, F&H.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much, fh. much yuletide cheer to you.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 17:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Christmas Greetings. Have a good holiday and relax. Kierzek ( talk) 18:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi fh, happy new year! Hope you're well and had a couple of good times during the holidays. OK. Problem. I checked my watchlist today, as usual, and all the edits had disappeared. Checked 1 day, 1 week, 1 month etc and came up with 0 edits during those time periods. Searched all watchlist material and google. No luck. Can you explain what happened and what I can do about it? Thanks,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Everything checks out as you say. Yes, your message on my talk p. is there. I just don't know why everything was deleted. I could ustand say, everything after a certain time frame. But then, of course, items would have been deleted one or two at time rather than all at once. This appears to be a mystery. Automatic deletion is not listed in the watchlist article and as so often happens, I can't get anywhere with the help link. Oh well, if anything pops into your brainy head, I'm always grateful for it! Meanwhile, best greetings to you,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
OK. Now I'm truly flummoxed. Looking for help, I got to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29/Archive_73#Best_way_to_save_watchlist_items_for_more_than_the_max._7_days.3F I clicked on the little arrow-link (what are those called?) and zap! wham! va voom! my watchlist with the past thirty days of stuff appeared. Still, when I click "my watchlist" at the top of my own page, only your message appears. As mysterious as 3d "printers". I'm hoping you might find this problem to be a interesting challenge to attack :) -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Then maybe you might have an interest in joining WikiProject Gerald Ford! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the life, career, and presidency of Gerald Ford.
We're very much a new project, so you have the opportunity to help form the design and structure of the WikiProject itself in addition to creating and improving content about Ford. You are more than welcome to join us by adding your username under the "Participants" section of our WikiProject page. Everyone is welcome, and you are free to contribute where and when you like.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask a member, and we'll be happy to help you. Hopefully we'll see you around the WikiProject!F & H -
You've edited some of my articles in recent months ( Second Bank of the United States). Take a look at my submission for a new article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Report_on_a_National_Bank
What gives? Do the reviewers have any experience editing US history articles? Or is this pretty standard when an editor submits their first article?
You know, it used to be, when you wanted to "call somebody who cares", it only cost a dime. Regards. 36hourblock ( talk) 22:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This user helped promote Rahm Emanuel to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Rahm Emanuel, which has recently become a GA. -- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
|
University degrees are considered honorary suffixes.
"In real life," names are written in the following format:
Prefix. Given name followed by surname, honorary suffix(es)
(e.g., Dr. Jack Layton, Ph.D.; Dr. Gregory House, M.D.; Mr. Mike Layton, M.A.; etc.)
Why remove the honorary suffixes from "real" individuals? If they have earned them, they have the right to include them in their name, so Wikipedia should display their suffix(es), however minor, in those individuals' biographies.
-- RandomKelvin ( talk) 00:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Im extremely new to Wikipedia, so this is probably the wrong way to go about it, but I just wanted to say that somebody is sabotating your work on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_McCarthy#Legacy page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evighedspanda ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
How about reinstating the text I added -- since it does not refer to anything specific -- but leaving out the photo? Would that work for you? Much of the article is unsourced anyway, so it seems unfair that you would remove my unsourced stuff while letting the bulk of the article stay as is.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, sorry about this [1]. I wish someone had of pointed this out to me earlier because I have been putting the correct article titles in the wikilinks of alot of articles over the last while, to avoid them redirecting. I'll stay away from editing wikilinks now, but what should I do about the other articles I already edited? Do I have to go back and revert my edits? I really don't know, so any advice here would be appreciated. Thanks, and again, sorry. Cmr08 ( talk) 03:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I see you don't like no queero-sexual stuff on your gay icon talkpage to Fred "I like it in the ass, now I hate myself and the world for it" Phelps. Well just so you know I read the BLP page and there is nothing on there that suggests I can't paraphrase what's in the source. The woman claimed his overt hatred of homosexuality, like your own denial to giving it up to Bubba, demonstrates the " the lady doth protest too much". Nevertheless being a barely intelligent inbred southerner you scream "BLP vio" throw your little manicured hands in the air and delete: oh what a prissy queen you are. I see you've been blocked for edit warring - what a nobody IRL you must be!
BTW just so you know - cos I might be smarter than you on my worst day - editing my comments is a violation of WP:TALK because I was paraphrasing the source's assertions not my own. Secondly like every whiny fag cocksucker on this site, when it comes down to it, all you did was take a sanctimonious tone to hide the fact you're really just got a WP:IDL boner. But hey as a redneck you're already denying it to yourself any hows! Have a nice day y'all! 86.176.8.4 ( talk) 17:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see my comments on the above page. Deb ( talk) 20:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Fat&Happy. I've reverted a deletion you made to the Sons of Confederate Veterans article. The content you removed is indeed in the cited source. That source is several pages long, so perhaps you missed it? Expanding the source link (click "See full page" at the bottom of the first page) and then searching for the word "recruited" should take you straight to the relevant portion. I must say, however, that I share your concern about the quality of the source itself. I'll see if I can find additional sourcing, and if not, I'll raise the issue at WP:RSN just to be sure. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 21:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure, glad to take a look. Disagreements are cool; it's all in how one treats other people. I've always found you an exemplary editor and I'm happy to be a colleague. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 01:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Please don't disrupt articles to make a point. You can discuss the issue on the talk page, but you're not going to get your way by edit warring, and certainly not by having a temper tantrum. I'm inclined to agree with some of your points, but if you persist in disrupting the article, I will lock it. There's no need to panic; everything will work itself out in time. Discuss the issue instead of edit warring, not in addition to it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I've mentioned your name at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Joe McCarthy.3BMcCarthy Army hearings. Acroterion (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, JohnKAndersen ( talk) 03:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
Hi Mr. Fat&Happy, I am looking for volunteers to re-create the link below for all 196 countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States The goal of this project is to map out the global economy. Here is the project page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabber091 ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fat&Happy,
I dont know how to send you a message, you will be able to delete that after if you want. I have seen that you reverted the changes I made on the continent page. I have spend my day reading the talk page because of the issue raised by the Oceania/Australia issue.
It seems Australian are taught that Oceania does not exist, that Australia is their continent and that the Pacific Islands do not belong to any continent. They are right in a way, because there is a geological continental crust plate which is called Australia. But we don't want to use the geological definition of a continent in that page. If so, there are 14 major continental plates and 40 minor ones and we would have to list them all. Zealandia (continent) is one of them.
On the other side, the rest of the world outside of Australia, including Pacific Islands people, are taught that their continent is called Oceania and not Australia. All the countries in the world have to be located in one continent, because continents are divisions of the land in 6 to 7 parts (webster's definition).
I said all of this in the talk page.
The changes I have made are coherent with the third opinion requested to Wikipedia for that question: put the 2 names Australia/Oceania. I added two definitions of what is a continent (from classic dictionaries) and illustrated the concept of continent as a division of the world with the French case. Those last things are not subject to controversy, only the name of the last continent. So you should let me edit everything except for the Australia/Oceania thing.
But I think that it is fair to let both names given there is a controversy and no consensus for australia.
Best Adrien16 ( talk) 17:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Edit explanation: "accurate representation of what the cited source considered noteworthy)" - agreed.
That provides the actual flavor of his comments, which "Breyer stated that based on the values and the historical record, the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated and that history supports his and the other dissenters' views in District of Columbia v. Heller" does not. It also makes it clear that Breyer believes the judiciary should legislate.
Wimania ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I see you deleted the relevant info that Crowder DID release the unedited video within days of the complaint, and put back in the Prosecutor's later quote that included speculation rather than the original, official quote. I added back in that Crowder released the unedited video and based on that the Prosecutor would not bring charges, without any extra opinion or spin added. The editors who have spent months, literally, working on this page and are most invested are happy with the wording. It gives the facts without leaning pro or con either way. If you disagree, please use the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steven_Crowder and/or the noticeboard page that resulted in a consensus after a long, arduous process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVN#Including_union_affiliations_of_prosecutor_who_refused_to_charge_union_members_with_assault.2FSteven_Crowder Thanks JohnKAndersen ( talk) 09:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
FH, I was just reading the sadly dreadful Carole Lombard p. and saw you had made an edit. Coincidence! So, just thought I'd check in and say hi. Take care,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I got that a little goofed up. Thanks for fixing it. Sorry to make you fix it twice. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 22:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Play-Doh; 00:47 . . (+1,081) . . Philkon (talk | contribs) (→Cultural impact: I added about a dozen references to the story told about Play-Doh in this movie, so 71.234.215.133 / Fat&Happy will stop deleting it as unsourced and irrelevant) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philkon ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Edits you have made have been mentioned by me at a request for comment on the Play-Doh article. 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 01:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm just wondering why you reverted a correction I made to Prince Harry of Wales. Thanks. Inglok ( talk) 01:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Fat&Happy, You may wish to look at this articles recent history. A editor from New Zealand, with a rather odd history, seems intent on making unreferenced changes, trivia and placing his name at the start of the article. If this carries on, I will take it to an admin and hope this meets with your approval? Regards, David J Johnson ( talk) 18:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Oops, my bad! Thanks for the revert - that is what I thought I was doing, was back to non-capitalized, I had it backwards!! We're on the same page! That's why I tried to quote the guidelines, because I thought they had done it wrong and HAD included the capitals!! Thanks! ChristensenMJ ( talk) 23:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not happy with your reversing of my edit to Encyclopedia Britannica. Americans do not equate with citizens of the United States of America. Please develop your point to me. Thierry Le Provost ( talk) 00:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thierry Le Provost ( talk) 02:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I counted 33 items in this table, and the lowest one has around 10% of the casualties of the highest. Is this list creep? Perhaps we should either a) Choose a semi-random number of items for the list (10? 20?) or b) choose a semi-random "total casualties" cutoff (10,000?). Tks. • Serviceable† Villain 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Anytime I use {{cite news}}
I feel like a child kicking over an ant hill. I get to watch everyone come out and fix stuff.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Fat and Happy, As you are much better versed in BLP, I was wondering if you could comment on my posting on the talk page of Daryl Katz. I was seeking to include the names of his children and parents but apparently it is in violation of WP:BLPNAME. I have edited a few biographies and it seems to me that names of parents and children are nearly always included if properly sourced. Anyhow, your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks Patapsco913 ( talk)
children=
parameter with "1 son, 1 daughter";Katz is married to Renee Gouin, the daughter of businessman Jean Ivan Gouin and his wife Carol. [2] They have two children, [3] twins Harrison and Chloe . [4] [possibly substitute "They have twin children, a son and a daughter."]
Oh my god fh, you were with me when I was trying to archive this old text. I was making the archive, no. 3, and made a mistake with the slash. I had cut the text to put in the archive and then cut the mistaken archive link so I couldn't get the original pasted back on. How on earth did you fix this? Thank you so much. I'm going to create archive 3 and get off all the stuff that's been there forever.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Shit! I made a mistake again. Wouldn't archive. I've archived my talk p. so I don't understand what mistake I made this time. Will you create an archive 3? I don't want to blow it a third time. Thank you.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Weirdly the last conversation moved from the bottom to the top of the talk p. This is the section that should be kept, I think, on the p. Thanks for saving me again.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, You removed Steve Reevis from the list, noting lack of reference. I re-inserted him in the list with a reference to his films on IMDb. I had figured that since Steve Reevis link on wiki lists reference to both his Blackfoot heritage and his films, that an additional reference was not necessary. I hope it is now satisfactory for you. :o) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Time River ( talk • contribs) 08:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Larry Silverstein may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hayden Panettiere may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I left a message on Talk:Anthony_Weiner#Website_picture_mistake for your recent deletion. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 22:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
WARNING has been placed on the Talk:Anthony_Weiner#Website_picture_mistake, please refrain from any further deletions, though reasonable and WP:RS edits are as always welcomed. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 03:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
You need to stop reverting my edits and engaging in an edit war. I have already reported you to a number of administrators, and they said that if you continue this behavior, they will block you!!!!!! 71.72.24.51 ( talk) 22:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry!!!!!! My Bad!!!!!! Please be patient with me because I am new at this!!!!!!! 71.72.24.51 ( talk) 23:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jennifer Aniston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mr. & Mrs. Smith ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anthony Weiner sexting scandal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily News ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Your revert, in this article. What 'copyvio' did you revert exactly?-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 22:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Arggggh. Very boring correcting multiple errors in an article.Hope you're well.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 15:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
I just discovered that you rolled back one of my contributions, here...Can you prouve, with another source, that Marlene Dietrich came american citizen in 1939 and not 1937 ? I see in the official site that it was in 1937.
Thank you. -- Orikrin1998 ( excuse my bad english, I'm french) 14:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Checked out Nomads in the Sedentary World on Amazon, Didgori is mentioned on pages 47/48 but there is no citation of 210K casualties.(I did a search in the book for Didgori) Regards-- Woogie10w ( talk) 00:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Southern Poverty Law Center may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 05:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ronald Lauder may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi fh, I saw the two edits made by you and jonxwood but I can see no difference whatsoever in the previous/current versions of either. Can you explain this what you changed? This seems to happen regularly, if infrequently, and I've never understood. Thanks,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm back! An error message has appeared at the end of the references section on the GG p. Any ideas?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Fine work, FH. I read your edits twice and can't figure out what you did though. And of course don't waste your time trying to explain it to me. Not sure we need the cit. after "Despite her popularity as a silent star...." since this is made clear throughout the section. Also, Photoplay based it's conclusion on amount of fan mail received by stars--not exactly an empirical study. Curious. Why did you cut out our discussion on your talk p.? Don't have to answer that if you don't want to. Don't have to do anything you don't want to!-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
based "its" conclusion. I see one thing you did was change title and add refharv. Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
ref=harv
allows proper use of the sfn template; as listed on Amazon, it looks like the last part is the name of a series of which the book is part, not actually part of the book title, so I used the template's separate series=
parameter, the main effect of which seems to be a lack of italics on that portion.
Fat&Happy (
talk) 19:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Please see the description at File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1974-082-44, Adolf Hitler im Ersten Weltkrieg.jpg. -- John ( talk) 20:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello bro, how long should a citation needed note be left on the page before the uncited claims can be deleted?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
p.s. Curious. Approx how many articles are you significantly involved with at any time? What draws you to a particular subject? You seem to be all over the map.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Your removal of Otto Frank from the category of "Holocaust survivors" and "Nazi concentration camp survivors" was illogical and unnecessary. Mr. Frank rightfully belongs in both categories, regardless of - as you put it - redundancy. Engines On ( talk) 02:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It's unfair to Otto Frank to have others, such as Primo Levi, accorded both categories. If you leave Primo Levi's "Holocaust survivors" category intact, while removing Otto Frank's, how is that justifiable? I strongly believe that both men should have both categories, but if you insist on removing Frank's, then you should remove Levi's. Engines On ( talk) 02:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with Gandhi House - I am doing a few in Joburg so do feel free to tidy, add or correct. Any idea where we might find a picture? Victuallers ( talk) 13:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC) |
Seems to me this cartoon is revelatory of the Big Lie always used against any third-party effort in the U.S.: that it somehow undermines our democratic republic and is thus giving aid and comfort to totalitarians. -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, my contributions of specific editorial cartoons to external links were not in the spirit of linkspam as I understand it. These links went to primary sources from a university collection that are illustrative of the entries and the cultural context. I made these edits in the spirit of improving the entries, and feel that they stand up in quality to many of the other external links. I was thinking that anyone interested in the subject matter would welcome the ability to link to an editorial cartoon from that time period about the subject. Not only does it reflect a point of view but also demonstrates through primary source documentation the public notoriety and impact. In addition to the value that editorials have, the cartoons also contain additional visual information useful for understanding the time period. I did add quite a few yesterday afternoon and apologize if they caught you by surprise or if my contributions were ill-conceived. If I'm reading the timestamps correctly (a big if), it appears you removed these as linkspam in about 16 seconds. Did you have time to follow any of the links to look at the source material? Jghapher ( talk) 13:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not introduce talk page (much less mainspace) sections with the same name, as it is an inconvenience for linking to sections. I suppose someone from redneck/hillbilly country and boasting of it on their user page naturally won't be bright enough not to err the same blunder twice. GotR Talk 15:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
For your award winning work on the Greta Garbo page. Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC) |
'DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT.'DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT.'DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT.'DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slim&Angry ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi FH, question about the filmography. My problem is that the intro just repeats stuff in the GG p. It's not drawing many readers so I raise the same question. Should it comprise a separate p.? Even though I spent several hours correcting all the mistakes this editor made (which I'm still still doing on the main p.) I'd like your thoughts on whether it should just be moved back. As for protocol, should it stay since an editor made the not insignificant change? Should I raise it on the talk p.? Problem there is that no one contributes. incidentally, I received a message from a user named Betty Logan in which she said this editor had been blocked twice for the extent of his/her false assertions on other pp. Should we revert to a previous version, she asked, even though many changes had been made since that several day period in early June? I told her I had corrected most inaccuracies and that the sections s/he messed up are now legit.) When I saw all the mistakes, i probably should have just reverted myself, though s/he did contribute some interesting tid-bits. Blah blah blah. Thanks for your patience in reading the endless messages I write.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Betty Logan
in the search box, you'll see a whole slew of sub-pages for things she's been working on. Don't know how accurate/current that "semi-retired" message on her talk page is.Well, opened up wp to find a little red box near my username at the top of the p. Clicked on it and ended up at a B L p. with "a whole slew of sub-pages for things she's been working on." Nothing related to my message to her. Incomprehensible stuff. So I suggest setting up the merge discussion you discussed. Whaddya say? Then, if there's no discussion, which I predict, we can figure out how to get an admin to put the filmography back.
Oh yes, I'm almost certain my Randolph family was a FFV. My father had the all the geneological papers going way back. Other side of my father's parents also from VA but if I give you the name you'll have mine! Anyway, that side was ruined by the war. Lost everything. My grandfather started with nothing. Don't know about the Randolphs. Seemed to be real aristocrats, you know, slave-owning. Don't know anything about the Georgia family. Anyway, I'm second generation northerner.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
well, unfortunately, that little link on the top of the G p. that says something like "redirected from gg filmography" only appeared once and of course then I goofed and I was gone with the wind, where the answer my friend is not blowing. Thanks for spending all the time writing it up because I'll keep trying. Some kind of bug I guess. I support your decision to delete the redirect.
I just saw an excellent film with Jude Law, Renee Zellwiger (sp?), and N Kidman about a Southern deserter. Excellent and very powerful, I think, although Nicole pretty boring, as usual. Will be back in touch when I get the link again. You can archive this p. if you want cuz I copied your directions in a word document and it's turning into one of our endless existential pursuits.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing the issue I had with the use of "handsome" in it's current context. You are heading in the right direction but not quite there.
Let me give you an example. Let's say there was an article that said that Arnold Schwarzenegger was described as muscular when he became Mr. Olympia. Now if I showed a picture to anybody I met, regardless of where they came from, they would have to honestly say Arnold was Muscular at that time. If I could travel in time, an honest answer from anybody would be the same, he is muscular at the time of Mr. Olympia.
Handsome is much more subjective. If I took a photo of FDR at the time of his marriage around the world, would I get the same results? Would Asians or Africans universally agree that FDR crossed the threshold of handsome? Would people past and present agree as well? The point is handsome is a very debatable term.
Who says FDR is handsome? The author of FDR's biography says so. That's all we know. There is no context. Because the term handsome is subjective, unlike social and charismatic, it should not stand on it's own.
If we knew what context Mr. Burns (the biographer who is cited) decided that FDR was handsome, then it could be worked in. For example, perhaps leading periodicals of the time described FDR as handsome.
Burns, to the best of my knowledge, is not a noted expert in what makes a man handsome. Saying FDR is handsome because Burns is cited does not make FDR, in fact, handsome.
To make the sentence factual requires either stating how Burns arrived at his characterization or striking the use of the word handsome. If you have that reference, that would be fantastic, but I suspect it's not in many households these days.
Jtgelt ( talk) 02:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)jtgelt
Why remove the dot? it is the end of the sentence. Jiawhein ( talk) 04:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi FH, 1) as I ustand, there's more oversight of WP articles than in the past. Is this true? If so, what are the instruments used? 2) I read the statements on you talk p. by slim&angry. did you make a complaint? If so, how? or was it a bot that picked up this person's harassment and then blocked his/her talk p.?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I was checking through your archives to check out our GG stuff for fun. God! What we wrote could easily comprise a book. So many different issues and levels of our epic conversation. (No comment on why I decided to devote precious time pursuing this line of inquiry, and why I'm continuing now. Could it be...procrastination? Nahh. Scholarly intrigue.) I started drifting in the fifth archive I think. But, we could publish it in academic press for scholars to read as an example of a long wiki collaboration and virtual friendship, both literary and oral communication (we "talked"). Good possibilities here for primary research for a dissertation. Kidding of course but academics do write about the most bizarre things. How many subspecies of one species of worms in the world. their mating habits. (do they mate?) Our work would be more interesting than THAT, I would think. You even talked occasionally about being in a bad mood which would add narrative electricity.
Still no sign of the link to separate filography section. Did you remove the article?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW. If you still haven't seen any G films, you should check out A Woman Of Affairs, a silent. One of her "greatest" performances. Wed. 7/10, 9:45 am, TCM.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi again. I appear to have been blocked from editing articles yet there's no information about this on either my talk or user p. I can't imagine why I would be blocked. I realize I'm not blocked from writing you. Any ideas?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 15:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Strange. Just learned that if I click on "edit source," which comes up upon clicking "edit," I can edit. Any ideas?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 16:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of events named massacres may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Ruth Westheimer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- IIIraute ( talk) 00:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to California may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Fat&Happy - You've edited a number of the articles I've posted, and my thanks. Can you take a look at Era of Good Feelings INFOBOX and fix the script that's showing up on the page - it's a mess. I honestly can't seem to figure out what's wrong with my methods.
36hourblock ( talk) 19:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I've been following your edits and I notice you're experienced and have a solid comprehension of Wikipedia's policy of parent and child categories. User:Edenc1 keeps reverting the edit I made on the article Joshua Kushner since he insists that the child category of "Category:American Jews" AND parent category "Category:American people of Belarusian-Jewish descent" belong in the same article. I like you to tutor him on Wikipedia's policy and concepts of parent and child categorization. Thank You. Backendgaming ( talk) 22:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I'm User02062000. Yesterday in the article 'List of sovereign states by date of formation' I have deleted Taiwan section because it is not de jure recognised. OK, you said that Taiwan is listed as a sovereign state by Wikipedia. Yes, it is. However, it is not recognised by international community. OK, you are right: it is listed, on the de facto basis. But there are 11 such states (see List of sovereign states), and, on your criteria, it must be listed too! And the State of Palestine is de jure recognised and listed as sovereign! We must create sections for these states! Because your point of view is not correct! You include Taiwan, with de facto independence and recognition from 23 states, but you do not include Kosovo, with de facto independence too but recognition from more than 100 states! Both Kosovo and Taiwan are listed (on de facto basis, of course) and must be included! User02062000 ( talk) 05:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. Bye! User02062000 ( talk) 12:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey my friend, was just visiting the Dylan p. and there you were. You're everywhere! See you see soon,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Got it but not going to bother. I've got better things to do that deal with that.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
LOL!!!-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Good afternoon. Comments above.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Always a pleasure. Will probably see you soon in my WP wanderings and will likely have technical questions. Am most satisfied with my WP attempt at rehabilitating the reputation of de Acosta who has generally been portrayed as a "perverse psychopath" (her biographer). My account, pieced together with all the G biographers along with the recent MdA biography, will, I hope, contribute to gay and lesbian history. After the DOMA ruling, this history will surely increase its still slim evidentiary status.
My next goal is to write the GG biographers and point out their errors along with their anti-MdA bias. This includes even Schanke who's mediocre biography of MdA doesn't acknowledge that only 87 of G's amazing 181 cards, letters, and telegrams over 30 years were permitted to be seen by the public. And so his skewed analyses are based on incomplete evidence. Incredibly sloppy research. If I found this information (in the NYT) her biographer certainly should done more rigorous sleuthing. This seemingly small bit of information changes the ways we think about their relationship. Astonishing that none of the critics and journalists (at least those I've read) who've written about the content of these letters bothered to find out how many letters there were (cited in 2 definitive G biographers who demoted the information into footnotes!) All drew conclusions based on incomplete evidence. You see, I'm a scholar who's never going to get promoted because of my fixation on these two fascinating figures in international culture. Blah blah blah.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
A couple of short responses to your most recent comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, can't find your short responses. Could you check Graham's money values change in the "Golden Age icon section"? I'm getting a much higher 2013 value of her 1932 $275,000.00 salary than s/he she does but am bad at math.
btw, I see I'm under surveillance by this fellow! Why do you suppose-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)???
4 × 275,000 = 1,100,000
.16 × 275,000 = 4,400,000
.Thank you for the link to the MoS. But I can't find a section there that deals with the format for listing birthplace. Am I missing it? Thanks. EvaristoAugello ( talk) 04:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a note to say I didn't mean to overturn your last edit at Shooting of Trayvon Martin. I've been trying to make an edit there for the past 10 or 15 minutes but each time have been blocked as a result of edit conflict or some system or network wackiness. So please excuse my having erased any grammar/punctuation changes you had just made. Dezastru ( talk) 07:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
May I ask why you are rolling back the external links I recently added to an impartial historical resource (other than, perhaps, because the word "progressive" is in the title?) You clearly reverted the changes before taking the time to examine what was being linked to. kevincmurphy ( talk) 19:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a new proposal on the table at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_11#Template:PD-NJGov for a modified template. If you have the chance, could you please review it? DavidinNJ ( talk) 14:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Re: Janne M. Sjödahl being in both Category:Swedish Latter Day Saints and Category:Swedish Mormon missionaries. In my experience, we almost never remove a Latter Day Saint by nationality category because it is "redundant" to a Mormon missionary by nationality category. In part, this is because being a Mormon missionary is not terribly defining for many Latter Day Saints. But it also avoids the "ghettoization" issue of articles being pushed to the furthest possible subcategory, which has been discussed quite extensively at WP:CFD lately due to the moving of many articles into "FOOian women writers" categories at the expense of moving them out of "FOOian writers". After the whole blow up with the "exposé" article in the NY Review of Books, the consensus seems to be that some technical redundancies in category application are desirable. I think this is a case where that would be accepted. (Do I still get that 25 cents?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, please refrain from pushing your views on Wikipedia. I understand that you identify strongly with and support the values of the former illegal state: The Confederate States of America which was founded on the principals of racism and slavery. Since these are extremist and reactionary positions in our modern society, I recommend you think carefully about whether your contributions truly advance the goals of Wikipedia. Thank you.
Best,
AnonWikiCitizen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.129.35 ( talk) 03:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to give you a heads up on your t.p. that I replied in detail re. Carmen Electra on the article's talk page concerning images, several of which caught my interest for the article:
Also, I'm fine with our cropping the #1 image, if that's the one we decide to go with, but I wonder if you would handle that, as I don't know how to losslessly-crop and would hate to make a mess of it. Thankfully, the images are all licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and they all come from the same Commons user and photographer who was present at the event where Carmen was captured in all her 2013-splendor (wow!). I do wish the ones of her singing were more flattering and devoid of other performers, however, but oh well. Anyway, I'll look to hear from you wherever - here, on the article's talk page or on my tp. Cheers! Az x2 20:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It was taken from IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000197/bio The information was pretty clear in his bio. I don't know how to add references, but would like you to know that I didn't just make it up. Lawrence142002 ( talk) 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Lawrence142002
Hi Fat&Happy, thanks for your ongoing feedback. Wanted to let you know I made the change to Carmen Electra and went with the image #3 we all agreed on. I respond in detail on the article talk page, where I again ask you and user:Tsui for additional feedback concerning the article's second image. If you could respond there, that would be great and I'd appreciate hearing from you again. (Can't say enough how nice it is to get near real-time feedback on a proposed change!!) Cheers! Az x2 16:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Whew. this has been a workout. I've made every argument I can possibly make and they're all legitimate. I always knew, as I said to you, that this section would arouse opposition and disgruntlement. To be expected. But this person clearly has an agenda. Mine is truly to protect the integrity of the article. How are you?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi FH, no comment on my recent queries? Everything OK?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 16:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm gratified that Rivertorch put the matter in a clear, current, perspective with ustanding of the methodological difficulties involved in writing about GBLT people. A big relief to me since no one else seemed to be the least bit interested in this critically important point (interesting in itself)--which I discussed twice. A historian starts with a question about which there is no, little, or muddled understanding. But it's virtually always the case that research in the humanities and social science begins with an intuition. Scholarship, then, can never be entirely objective. Furthermore, "objectivity" is only something we can aspire to but never fully achieve because it's always embedded a priori in paradigms of thought and action. Blah blah blah. Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I understand why you reverted my edit on Macau, I am disappointed though that you did not also fix East Asia which was the source of my edit. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 03:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm going to take the LGBT p. off my watchlist so if anyone responds to your GG question, will you alert me on my talk p.? I'm also going to stop watching your p. if and until we strike up the band again. Macao. You are indeed amazing. Have a good weekend. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
We must be linked by ESP. You made almost exactly the same changes to Sergey Aleynikov that I was going to make. Except you made them at the exact same time I was making them (within the same 5 minutes window).
AaronJ at mst.edu (
talk) 01:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carlo Gambino may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 23:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
First, I'm not quite sure why you are continuing to remove referenced factual content on the T4 article.
As an aside, please remove the racist 'Confederate' flag from your user page. That's no different from decorating your page with Swastikas. See [2]. Wikipedia policy says "you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute." -- User:Poet of Freedom —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Just for your general brilliance. Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC) |
Greetings my friend, I'm trying to edit the Queen Christina (film) page and need your help. An editor states that QC didnt do as well at the box office as the studio expected. Problems: 1) incorrect, 2) source is a tiny review from a contemporary and insignificatn web publication that makes no mention of the studio's expectation. But, every time I try to change it, I get a red error in the reference section.
Here's the sentence and ref: "Although it did not perform as well as the studio had expected, [5] Thanks for your help, -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Considering the discussion on the talk, it is highly inappropriate of you to revert without explanation on the talk where a number of us are discussing changes. Furthermore, due to ArbCom restrictions, you should be careful in this regard. If you continue to do so, I will alert admins per WP:BLP. Laval ( talk) 01:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The earlier 'UK' before Boris Johnson, helped to distinguish him from a London, Ontario Mayor. Beingsshepherd ( talk) 15:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
Your revert of my edit is quite right. I was looking at North Carolina. Thanks! 108.115.140.103 ( talk) 01:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. In line with your zealous work on reverting bad edits, you just now reverted my edit to Robert Jeffress, based on "false equivalence." You seem to be a pretty active Wikipedian, so I'm ready to assume you're right and I was wrong. That said, would you please explain to me why the equivalence was false? (I thought about just adding "Critics of Catholicism" to his page, but no such category exists. It seems to me that in line with the current policy on bias categories (that, e.g. "anti-Catholicism" or "anti-Semitism" may not be used in biographical articles), that there's now an asymmetry whereby Jeffers' anti-LDS or anti-Muslim statements can be categorized, but not, e.g., anti-Catholic ones. Do you think the best solution for removing the asymmetry is to create a "Critics of Catholicism" category? It seemed to me that that would just duplicate the problems that have plagued the "anti-Catholicism" category. Hence my deletion of the two "Critic" categories in an attempt to remove the logical asymmetry. As you've reverted my edit, I assume you have a different perspective. What do you think ought to be done about the category issue?
Many thanks, Rinne na dTrosc ( talk) 16:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand your reason for removing the category "Firearms related groups", but if anyone (a reporter, someone in academia, or just a general reader) is looking for a list of these groups (pro-, anti-, otherwise) they will not see this group unless they dig into the sub-category. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 03:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Impressively varied list of articles that you've edited.... wow! Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 05:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
(Generic warning:)
Your recent editing history at Ron Paul shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being as experienced as you are, I truly feel this is inexcusable. I began a discussion at Ron Paul's talk page, which really is something YOU should have done. Please join the discussion before reverting again, or I will be forced to report you for edit warring. PrairieKid ( talk) 06:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi FH, it's been a while! Hope you're well. I was looking for a reference and noticed a problem with fn 37. Can you check it out? Smooth sailing to you,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the fn, my friend. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, why is your p. so often empty? You used to have a lot of threads going that were visible to all. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello User:Fat&Happy I do not understand because they leave append in the first paragraph of article information from Tina Turner as The Queen of Rock and Roll, knowing that is important information.
As should be the first paragraph of Article:
Anna Mae Bullock (born November 26, 1939), known by her
stage name Tina Turner,
[11]
[12] is a
singer, dancer, actress, author, and choreographer, whose career has spanned more than half a century, earning her widespread recognition and numerous awards. Born and raised in the United States, she lives in
Switzerland and holds
Swiss citizenship. His career developed over fifty years ago, one of the most significant cultural icons of the rock, he is often referred to as "The Queen of Rock".
-- Artistofrockandrollartist ( talk) 04:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to truncate or remove the caption, and/or adjust the size. I thought this flag would go well with (and complement) your stars and bars. Anyway, if you don't like it, feel free to delete, but don't let it touch the ground. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
no archives yet ( create) |
hi fat&happy, you removed a whole paragraph from the article donald rumsfeld. would you be so kind to explain your reasoning a little more here? -- ThurnerRupert ( talk) 11:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi F&H, an editor has made an interesting change in the number of nominations for A wards G received. Perhaps you've seen them. I recommended that s/he cite the change (sounds legit) at the beginning otherwise someone will likely change it back since nobody knows about this, including all the authors I've read. Can you go to my talk p. and help this person with the sourcing?
Meanwhile, I miss you! Hope you've been having a fine weekend. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
You brazenly removed all of my edits to pages of politicians whose current employment is now in lobbying. My source is the Center for Responsive Politics: http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z. What they're currently doing is by definition notable and is also in line with the pages of several others - Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, and Tom Daschle, to name a few. I will be reinserting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.101.240 ( talk) 17:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at WP:BLPN involving recent edits by 68.180.101.240 at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#User:68.180.101.240_and_lobbyists. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering why you reverted my edit...anyone can "receive" a pardon, it only takes effect when it is "accepted." Knoper ( talk) 02:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Fat&Happy. I appreciate your diligence on verifying WP rules on edits. I'm flying fast during breaks at the editing day job and sometimes apply the other style book.
Unrelated question: where did you get the heritage banners on your user page? I like them, and would like to post some. Desertroadbob ( talk) 11:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the information about templates. I'll check those resources out when I find the time. Your Irish and CSA modification will come in handy, as will the standard Scottish, German and USA templates. Do they have one for Celts in general?
Back to the main topic: Rather than exchanging reverts, let's talk. I'm coming at the punctuation from a modified AP style (admission of bias). But, regardless, most of the instances seem to meet the intent of the first rule in WP:LQ: the period or comma is a logical extension of the thought and likely to have been in the original source (or its transcript). What is your thinking? Desertroadbob ( talk) 15:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The edit you have made on the United States Armed Forces is wrong. US conscription was abolished in February 1973. Please don't make an edit like that again. ( Chipperdude15) ( talk)
You seem extremely active on a wide variety of topics. I've made a dozen or so edits in 6 months. I see that you've done much more than that just today.
Perhaps you could tidy up the page:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Thomas
It needs a disambiguation section and 3 separate entries for
(1) The Australian Writer.
(2) The Welsh Singer (I put some info in the Talk section).
(3) The Canadian native rights political activist.
From 86.159.40.236, alias 86.167.187.81, alias 86.169.93.78
86.159.40.236 ( talk) 05:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
"The place of birth, residence and/or death of people who were born, lived or died before 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland should be given simply as "Ireland" (my emphsis), Sorry Fat&Happy, but Neeson isnt that old! Mind you, you have shown a slight missed point post-1922 isnt clarified. Will get that changed. Murry1975 ( talk) 12:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Thewikiguru1. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Steve Ballmer because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
Thewikiguru1 (
talk) 02:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey Fat Ass, how is it irrelevant to point out the racism rooted in the town Helms grew up in, the racist justice system his father embodied by abusing blacks in front of other blacks, all of this when it says in the article itself as a lawmaker he opposed the Civil and Voting Rights Act, let alone the Martin Luther King legacy he tried to erase by opposing his holiday? just from your profile you look like you fit right with the likes of Helms and the KKK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.88.150 ( talk) 04:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there F&H. Just wanted to check in and send greetings. Just made an adjustment in the GG relationships section that echoes our super charged discussion several months ago about her sexuality. I see you're still checking in. Good! I'm amazed that no one else has edited at all which seems to suggest the article's in good, stable shape. to my delight, I've been detaching from GG and WP editing in general. But if someone crazy comes along, I'll be there! Take care, -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe the book by James Whelan corroborates your edit "...tacitly supported by the United States" as opposed to "supported by the American Central Intelligence Agency" as restored by Abhimanyulele. (Whelan, James R. (1989). Out of the Ashes: Life, Death and Transfiguration of Democracy in Chile, 1833-1988. Regnery. ISBN 978-0-895-265531.) The CIA has also provided a reasonably detailed and credible accounting of its activities before, during, and after the coup at https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/chile/index.html. Claudeb ( talk) 15:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The Japan section presents a "happy talk" listing of parties which have supported Japanese permanent membership, but somehow fails to mention the inconvenient fact that some of Japan's closest neighbors oppose such membership, and so is overall unbalanced. AnonMoos ( talk) 20:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey! Can you please show me the relevant MOS on pull quotes? I can't find any (searching with WP/MOS/HELP quotes/grab quotes/pull quotes). I'd really like to revert (because I like how the quote marks look and signal) but I wanted to check with your first? Thanks. Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 08:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, it looks like you deleted the addition of "parachutage" carpetbagger claiming there is no source. Did you check the link? It is mentioned in the titled. D0kkaebi ( talk) 09:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Fat&Happy, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Italian-American actors, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Significantly different enough category to one deleted 2 1/2 years ago - discuss first. . You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirt58 ( talk) 14:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Fat&Happy I'm JD3rulo, I'm not sure why you changed the pictures I hang up of those singers, they don't have any "forbidden" content, so if you could explain me, please let me a note in my user page. Thanks sweetheart. JD3rulo ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, are you following my edits or is it just coincidence that you've often edited articles shortly after I edit them? XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 03:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
You should really go to the talk page to discuss with others before editing. Lilly Collins was born in Britain so is British. She see's herself as British (because she is) always refers to herself as British and English. The only time she referred to herself as an American she followed straight up with "Even though i'm technically not even an American". She's constantly saying she's British. She just 'lives' in America for 10 or maybe less months a year (depending on work) and she spends 2 months a year back home in Britain. She even calls Britain her home!
I'm Portuguese, was born in Portugal, moved to Britain when i was 10 and have lived in Britain for 17yrs, but I'm still Portuguese whether i like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.38.23 ( talk) 00:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Fat&Happy. From our earlier discussion, I remember that you had an issue with the punctuation in my earlier edit on Alex_Jones, but you were actually OK with changing "over" to "more than". I finally got time to do those, so I'm heading over there and—since our reverts were the last edits—I didn't want it to seem like I was picking a fight. Regards, Desertroadbob ( talk) 01:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, sweetheart, it's me JD3rulo again. Last time you didn't answered me but it's OK, I'm not a resentful person. Why you removed the paragraph I wrote about Jessie J's vocal range?, the right link which validates it is http://vocalranges.blogspot.com but another user let me a notification saying it's not reliable, so I don't understand, what are the sites that all of you consider reliable sources? If you could answer me, please let me a notification or write in my talk page, thanks. Have a nice day! JD3rulo ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I read the headline on your talk page, but your actions do make you look like someone who cares, so...
Anyhoo, you reverted my edit to the American and British English spelling differences#Greek-derived spellings#-ise, -ize (-isation, -ization)#British usage, as "unhelpful argumentation". You may be right in that, but what I was trying to counter, perhaps badly, was the statement higher up that says "many reference works, including the Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, prefer -ise." The problem is that, since Allan's Pocket Fowler's uses, e.g. "realize" not "realise", except in quotations, i.e. follows OUP practise, the existing statement is, at best, disingenuous if not actually a lie. I admit it's probably better to delete the inaccuracy than counter it, but a suitable rewording of what would be left does not leap out at me. So, if you don't like what I did, how do you suggest dealing with the terminological inexactitude that's currently there? Graham.Fountain | Talk 11:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The dominant British English usage of -ise has long been preferred by authorities such as Cambridge University Press, and many reference works, including the Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, prefer -ise.
The dominant British English usage of -ise is preferred by Cambridge University Press. Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage considers either usage to be acceptable anywhere except the US.
rm still non-RS - The Militant is a long operating socialist newspaper and even though I do not agree with their politics, that doesn't invalidate them as a source. Also, Doug Jenness isn't on Wikipedia but he has published several books over the years. [6].
still partisan - this is true but these are allowed on BLP under certain constraints.
still attack page - it is critical of him and this also is allowed under constraints on WP:BLP.
still with no unique resource content from BLP - this is where you lose me. Are you saying there needs to be another RS in agreement with the content of the article from '98? Alatari ( talk) 07:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I added a new section to the article on Discrimination. To wit:
People who use illegal drugs risk imprisonment, loss of voting rights, and face discrimination in areas of employment, housing, and child custody. [13] [14] [15] [16]
{{
cite AV media}}
: Text "audio commentary" ignored (
help)
ArchivesCanada
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).EdmontonJournalReclusive
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Text "
ISBN
978-0-8166-4182-6" ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Text "
ISBN
978-0-8166-4182-6" ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
You removed my addition with the explanation, "punishing illegal actions is called enforcing the law, not discriminating."
I wonder if you might yet conceive it possible could I reword it or reframe it to overcome your objections and thus merit inclusion? Danny Sprinkle ( talk) 16:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFleischman ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Any idea why I got notified you reverted my edit on Abraham Lincoln when as far as I can tell, your edit had nothing to do with mine? VMS Mosaic ( talk) 05:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Sir, If you insert Mr. Ross's biographical information here, it says he is a registered Democrat. However there is no URL to be cited. https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/voterSearch.aspx Kind regards, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterZumthor ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Diptanshu Talk 16:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chris Christie may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I just to let you know, even though I reverted your recent proposal I still appreciate your effort to look for common ground. :-) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Fat&Happy,
I was reprimanded for starting a "revert war" and told to use the "Talk" section before revering. You did not do that. Why? You did not contact me to discuss your concerns with my contribution. Why? You are not being honest. Why?
If Wikipedia allows the blind parroting of "Oswald assassinated JFK", it is doing a great disservice to the reader who has a right to be informed. Not disinformed. Your reverting my justifiable contribution could be considered disinformation, something a true Wikipedian should loathe.
50 years after the incident, as you should know (and I'm quite surprised that apparently you and other contributers here don't), much information has come to light which points to the fact that Oswald did not assassinate JFK. We may never know what role he played exactly. However, it is (or should be) clear now that the statement "Oswald assassinated JFK" is a deceptive untruth.
Please be aware that I have formally asked for mediation to resolve this issue.
Thank you.
4eyes ( talk) 13:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)4eyes
Greetings my friend! I don't suppose that WK is a place for socializing but to hell with that policy for just a moment. The GG p. has been stable for several months now which is gratifying. I still wander around the WK ecosystem but visit GG less frequently. So I just wanted to say hello, I miss you, and I hope you're continuing to make the great contributions you have made to WK over several years. Feel free to say hi on my blank talk p. as you see fit. Take care, your pal cfb-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Detroit Race Riot (1943) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 06:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Glad the GG p. is still on your watchlist. Jersey City? Hmmm. Hope you had a nice thanksgiving. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Would you be willing to provide input on a dispute at Talk:Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative#Discussion_on_parentheticals_versus_longer_statements? It doesn't appear that you've edited this article previously and might be considered a neutral party. Thank you. CFredkin ( talk) 20:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Fat&Happy. I tried to make an edit to the article, which you stated was poorly written. I have attempted to write a new paragraph to try and clarify it. As well you mentioned that I cited poor sources. Upon reviewing the huffington post sources. I concur. I have since added sources from the News corporation "ABC" and will look for other such sources. Does this conform to your desired quality of writing. Please advice. (note this above paragraph is not meant as jest, it is an honest inquiry for advice). May you please explain where I went wrong in my first draft. Also, if you can refrain from just deleting editor's articles before they have a chance to edit the drafts this would serve the interests of our community if us greenhorn writers be given the chance to learn from our mistakes. Of course under mature writer's such as yourself. Again my apologizes if this comes across as a rebuke which is not my intention.
Here is a copy of the new paragraph detailing the so called 'post humourous gay rituals' over the grave of the mother of Fred Phelps: Again it is intended to be a draft, as I am most willing and happy to learn from you. In short I wish to be a better Wikipedia journalist.
(New revised edition to the one you deleted. I concur, that edition lacked descriptive adjectives and adverbs and other such descriptive articles of writing). Sources 175 and 176, are from ABC news.
On July 14, 2013, Members of a Satanic sect called the "Satanic Temple" preformed 'pink mass' rituals over the grave of Catherine Idalette Johnson the mother of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) founder Pastor Fred Phelps. According to Lucien Graves, the church member who preformed the rituals, the ordinances post-humorously transformed the sexual orientation of Johnson from that of heterosexual to homosexual.[175] The ritual was preformed twice as both a lesbian and gay couple were represented. Afterwards, Graves desecrated Johnson's gravestone by exposing his gentiles to the stone.[176] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat ( talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Please stop falsely accusing me of disrupting or vandalizing articles when all I did was make coding text more concise and cleaner. There is no need whatsoever for slashes in "br" things, so stop using "disruptive" or "vandalism" as excuses to revert me. Quite frankly, your insistence on having those slashes is irrational. They function perfectly fine without slashes. Not sure why syntax highlighter says otherwise, but it is mistaken. "br" without slash is a perfectly valid code. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 02:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
</small>
at the end of a paragraph causes it to malfunction for the rest of the article. But it can be useful, and is sanctioned for use in its current form; you have no valid reason for incapacitating it by removal of small bits of otherwise harmless HTML.
Fat&Happy (
talk) 03:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Both of you need to stop this rather idiotic edit war. -- NeilN talk to me 04:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Have you seen this? -- NeilN talk to me 04:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
To Fat&Happy and XXSNUGGUMSXX:
Is either of you able to point to any requirement at Wikipedia to support your position on the specific form of the line-break coding element -- that is, the presence or absence of the slant?
If not, is either of you able to point to any technical reason for which either form is mandatory or better than the other?
If either of you can do so, please do.
If neither of you can do so, then is this question not a matter of personal preference?
If that is true, by what right does either of you seek to impose your personal preference on the other and on the rest of the world?
If one position is correct, and the other is not, then please inform the rest of us, so that we can know – so that we can benefit from your wisdom and knowledge.
In any event, by what authority does either of you hurl those insulting labels – "disruption" and "vandalism" – at each other?
Best wishes to all,
Doc.
DocRushing (
talk) 05:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear F & H - I'm in the process of posting a major edit to Texas Annexation. Can you visit the site and tell what is wrong with the pixel issue on the double image of Calhoun and Upshur. I can't get them to match. Help! 36hourblock ( talk) 21:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
You are a prince! But I won't risk overdrawing on my "ask a favor" account. Kind regards, as always. 36hourblock ( talk) 18:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fat&Happy I just wanted to caution you that you were engaged in an Edit War with Scott Illini. Remember if you violate the 3RR you can be blocked from editing. If you seem to disagree with an editor please discuss the edit on the article Talk page or that users Talk page. I'm just giving you a friendly reminder. Etineskid (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Here's to another year of your endlessand important work on Wiki.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Paul Newman#Contentious edit regarding Newman's mother which you may be interested in contributing to.-- Mrmatiko ( talk) 20:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)