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 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Fat and happy, why do you keep undoing the changes I made on Princess Dianas ancestry. I erased the part that said the her great grandmother Elza Kevork was Indian and dark skinned. When a dark skinned person marries a white man the kids don't come out white, they come out slightly ligher but the pigment never goes away and even generations later the dark pigment remains. Therefore logic and science tells us that Elza Kevork could not have been dark skinned or Indian because her children were white. Princess Diana is as fair as they come. My mom is 100% Armenian and she looks just like Princess Diana, she has pale blue eyes, blond hair and fair skin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.223.228.12 ( talk) 03:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I did quite a few, others did the rest. Dougweller ( talk) 20:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure Leland Stanford wasn't a robber baron? Here in California, in the public schools, we are taught that he was one of the "big four" robber barons (the others being Collis Huntington, Charles Crock, and Mark Hopkins). The term "robber baron" was coined in 1934 by historian Matthew Josephson for a book he wrote called The Robber Barons. Stanford did great work late in his life, founding Stanford University among other things, but he was much hated in California in the 19th Century, especially by wheat farmers, whom he gouged and put out of business by the thousands by charging outlandish rates to carry their wheat to market on his railroad lines. Some historians want to give Stanford's image a makeover and soften his reputation. In a forward to the 1962 edition of his book, Josephson wrote the following about these historians:
The article Robber baron (industrialist) describes thinking about what constitutes a robber baron and lists Leland Stanford as a robber baron.
I don't think Wikipedia should be part of this revisionist school but should tell it like it is, and call Stanford what he was -- a robber baron. Just my two cents... Chisme ( talk) 21:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
To stay awake during all your WP adventures! Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hey, you should take a look on Cher's article at the Wikipedia in portuguese. It's well ilustrated, very well written, complete and have a big number of references. It's also a featured article. You may translate it to english. Lordelliott ( talk) 20:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher
A mid-importance article supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers that was reviewed by Version 1.0 Editorial Team and selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions. The article has come a long way from a fan boy mish mash to a fair enough GA. Now is the time to take it to the next level. Currently it's going through another peer review. Please, lend a hand. Aditya( talk • contribs) 10:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a common sense ? look what you've done to this article ! -- Napsync ( talk) 17:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I have initiated a DRV here for the overrules category that you recently nominated. Savidan 18:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You undid this edit today indicating it wasn't in the source article: "though no evidence ever surfaced that the jewelry was stolen." That phrase is directly from the sourced article. Please re-read the entire article, and when convinced, redo your undo for me. I came to your talk page to avoid an edit war, thinking that you probably just missed the information by not reading down far enough in the article or something. Cheers ArishiaNishi ( talk) 01:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Your user name is now featured on Mashable.com in a bar-graph illustrating, ahem, us five Wikipedians with a few dozen edits, at least, upon Wikipedia's BLP about Mitt Romney during the Primaries to-date (altho most of my edits there--and in general--tend to be something like adding a hyphen and then afterward deciding to delete it and stuff <shrugs>): LINK.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 09:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Fat&Happy. I see you are a template guru, so I have question for you: Is it possible to unlink the links to the disambiguation page Unkown (but keep the text) in the election templates in Gatton by-election, 1803 ( check) and 13 other articles? Applying nowiki tags doesn't work... LittleWink ( talk) 21:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
But you manage to create a working template. I already thought creating a new template was necessary but I wouldn't even try to start with one. Thanks again. LittleWink ( talk) 09:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Back again to bother you! Today, a user recently replaced susan lennox pic at top of gg p. with what i consider to be a terrible AK photo. Then s/he added the SL pic to the body of the text, creating huge gap betw sections and overcrowding it as well. I wrote him/her and, arguing that previous pic and arrangement MUCH better, reverted the change and saying we might want to put the discussion on the talk p, where it now is. Perhaps you might check in and pitch your opionion. You'll also notice some other pic changes I made after user informed me of some WP image placement protocol, so the p. will look different (and better) to you anyway. Hope you're well!-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi F&H, well this whole discussion is madness now. Await your comments on how to resolve the argument, which is what it's become. An editing war, I guess. Who would have thought? It's an excellent, well-researched and written page as it stands. I'm already exhausted thinking about getting back into this page when I thought I had finished. But unfortunately I don't agree with many of his or her changes and additions which I think, and have made clear, weaken the p. And I presume you read my exegesis in which I tried to defend the section as it is.
But on another matter. Can you explain how to archive stuff on my talk page? I did it once but now i can't find a link. Thanks for your help,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Finally. You may be interested to know that after the debate plays out with Wikiwatcher and any other interested talk p. readers, I'm going to let go of the page completely. Just not look at it. This past go-round was emotionally wrenching and I spent a lot a lot of time defending the reasons for my actions. So, 1), I never want to go through that again, 2) I understand the nature of the beast and know now that pages can go up and down in quality, things that are written can be deleted, changed, etc., etc., and 3) I have to move on. This p. has dominated my life for almost 8 months. I think the page as it stands is superb and written according to the highest standard of scholarly rigor. None of this would have happened without your participation. There is still more to say about Greta Garbo. Small mistakes should be corrected. If another wants to develop it further, I hope he or she will exhaust the available research and dispassionately write material that is consistent with the quality of the current version. I don't mean to sound conceited or egotistical--I'm too old and floored by life for that--I just know my strengths and limitations as a person. So I'll be watching for a couple of more weeks and then leave its future to the Wikipedia gods.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks babe, you know everyting. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi there old buddy. Wikiwatcher just added a new image. Do you think the p. is now overcrowded? Also, should it have two photos from Ninotchka?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi it's me. Last edit on g p. is: "Robot: sr:Грета Гарбо is a good article". Can you explain to me what this is? Also, watched Camille again last night and saw that while her perfnc is good, the movie has really dated unlike others she made. So, meh.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back. Can you explain the edit, and your reversion, on May 9? Seems like the other one changed U.S. to United States and you reverted back to U.S. What was his/her and your reasoning for for this tiny change? Yours,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Another technical question: What is helpful pixie bot?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 17:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of richest American politicians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of richest American politicians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dezastru ( talk) 19:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV". Thank you. Innab ( talk) 17:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi there!
Since you have frequently made edits to this section, I wonder if you have any opinion on discussion currently under way on the Talk page.
The basic issue is whether "Sufi scholars" should mean Sufis who are scholars (in whatever area), or scholars of Sufism.
Thanks! -- Sarabseth ( talk) 23:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The entry on the Dimon page is about the $2B loss. The Krugman opinion ties it to the [Volker Rule]. My addition adds facts about Dimon and the Volker Rule to that page it is not disputing Klugman's opinions. It adds relevant facts from a reliable secondary source. From the Wiki help page 'Describing points of view': "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy." Jamesedwardlong ( talk) 18:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing my mistake. Indeed, that is what I was trying to accomplish. :-) Cosmic Latte ( talk) 00:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear F&H, you reversed the line I entered about the Weills' buying an estate in Sonoma County, placed just before the line about their $12 million gift to Sonoma State University, on the rationale that it was out of place in a section on their philanthropy. In fact there is a clear connection, as is apparent in the immediately preceding item: first they buy property in an area, then they get involved with local philanthropy. Without the estate purchases, there would have been no local philanthropic gifts. Or maybe your logic would have you delete the reference to the land purhase in the previous item as well. But it does appear to be an interesting, connected pattern. Dwalls ( talk) 05:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I recommend Chicago. Revert yourself now. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Dude, I watched the CMT special. He did promise G-d that he'd quit by the time that he was 30. And you can do the homework yourself--Alicia Sandubrae is Krystal Keith's sister-in-law (Look at her Pininterest, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) and Shelley Covel Rowland is Toby Keith's daughter. Nickidewbear ( talk) 17:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Your comment about the Lawyer's comments are wrong. Lawyers, Genealogists, and Historians all worked on that letter. It was not the opinion of the lawyer but fact. no lawyer in their right mind is going to go up against the Federal government without facts. And by the way, we won that case in Federal Court. The BIA conceded to us in front of the Supreme Court even though we didn't gain Federal Recognition. Ramapoughnative ( talk) 21:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you revisit your rvv change? You also reverted a few changes of mine there (the account I assume you meant only added to lead, not the later-sections' changes I made). DMacks ( talk) 07:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Discuss your objections here: Talk:Uma Thurman Let Me Eat Cake ( talk) 16:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
F&H,
give examples of some of the million - because the section is about the provision of the service to the Post office, although have not seen research showing provision of "licence, etc" to be the case for any other similar organisation Largehole ( talk) 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
please go to Talk of the article as your criticism doesn't seem correct, although would be interesting if the facts were made more obvious by your referencing your statement, to my knowledge, the Electronic Transfer Service is the only one of this within the U.K. of which JP Morgan Europe are the only provider of the licence and EBT, they don't infact provide the customer service,(the Post Office provide this) the EBT of benefits is known of in the states of America also. Largehole ( talk) 19:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes but the information $2-trillion isn't very informative, and something has to fill the blank parts of the article, the information is interesting to me not seeming relevant to yourself , so is not democratic to remove the information,(1:1) and is not harmful to anything to leave the information in. (if no actual information of how the sum is being used etc is given nobody knows anything) Largehole ( talk) 19:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
(1:1) F&H,
Largehole (
talk) 19:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for following-up on my recent edits on Ronald Reagan's military service section. Understanding Wikipedia's Manual of Style on military terms, I have some differences in the edits made. For instance, it appears a few of the terms should be proper, not general. It appears you have enough fights going on, so just take a look at my addition to the talk page and let me know what you think. Bullmoosebell ( talk) 08:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
You deleted a link to the most extensive article on the Force Theme that exists on the web as well as in literature. The "fansite" jwfan.com is the biggest John Williams database on the whole worldwideweb. No one except maybe Steven Spielberg and John Williams closest friends have devoted more time to everything John Williams than this website and their members.
It is by far the biggest and best John Williams website on the worldwideweb. An official site doesn't even exist anymore. So this comes as close to official as it gets. To delete a link to a great article excactly on the subject just because it is posted on a "fansite" seems very superficial and one minded to me. I encourage you to rethink your decision to exclude the biggest and best John Williams resource on the net just because you don't seem to know anything about this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.104.80.155 ( talk) 17:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Why was the Dangerfield sourced material removed? Are you familiar with the topic? 36hourblock ( talk) 20:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Standard Time ( 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) 14:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
This
[1]
My fault for not paying attention to the date. Doh... you're right of course.
TMCk (
talk) 00:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to add some lines and suggestions to the wiki page about politics. As near as I can figure, you have tossed out my entries because they were presented as facts. I'm not sure why that's a problem.
Why are you moderator of this entry? Is there another moderator I can appeal to? maybe I don't understand how wiki works. But, the info I submitted is relevant and even 100X more coherent than the incomprehensible drivel that was there before, which offered nothing to the discussion about politics and property at all. I think some pot smoking history drop out was trying to tackle the issue before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.193.73 ( talk) 06:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
If you took the time to read Asiatic Vespers you would stumble over the word "massacre". That the title is vesper instead is not the point. see also here German.Knowitall ( talk) 13:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Inclusion in this list is based solely on evidence in multiple reliable sources that a name including the word "massacre" is one of the accepted names for that event. A reliable source that merely describes the event as being a massacre does not qualify the event for inclusion in this list. The word Massacre must appear in the source as part of a name for the event.
Why are you deleting sections of the Marco Rubio article leaving no summary and not commenting in the relevant section on the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTylerToe ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why you kept erasing the same words while claiming it was minor or not even giving a reason. To me, it smells like vandalism, but I don't know how all the rules work so I'll let others berate you. 24.45.42.125 ( talk) 06:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be edit warring to keep the well-cited criticism out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation. If I understand correctly, I could report you right now for WP:3RR and have you blocked. Is this what you want or are you going to put the criticism back yourself? 24.45.42.125 ( talk) 00:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
from Mormonism and Christianity, regarding inclusion of Mormonism and/or Latter Day Saint movement in Christianity and environmentalism article without clarification.
99.109.124.95 ( talk) 01:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
cunt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slr722x ( talk • contribs) 11:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC) @ User:Fat&Happy
Please stop making changes to Islamic view of Joseph - In Islam, photos are not prohibited of Prophets; therefore you have no right to keep editing my changes; they are personal feelings they're Islamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slr722x ( talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
You lie that Sheriff Arpaio has not sent investigators to Hawaii. Or you are uninformed. Just Google "Sheriff Arpaio investigators Hawaii" and you will see plenty of articles. Please undo your lie and put the truthful version back on. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sheriff-arpaio-s-detectives-concentrate-investigation-hawaii — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetcafebooth6 ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear F & H -
You've been editing some of my recent posts, and thank you. Can you review some of the articles I've rewritten and see if they are suitable for Good Article Reassessment? Thanx. Dallas tariff, Era of Good Feelings and Bank War. 67.59.92.60 ( talk) 20:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
On July 5, 2012, you revised the block quote in this article and integrated it into the text. You also seemed to have introduced two citations from Schlesinger and Wilentz. The only sources I offered in the original were from Varon and Dangerfield.
Did you source these and add them? If not, where did they come from? Did the Schlesinger and Wilentz cits get moved from another portion of the my text? Please check. 36hourblock ( talk) 19:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont know what your game is but you obviously arent sensitive to the issue of intermarriage as it relates to the Jewish community and how it should be reported concerning a prominent member such as Mr Senor when he marries a Catholic woman. Is it something that should be noted neutrally in his bio? I think so but I guess you have the final word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.101.88 ( talk) 23:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, WTF are you doing.
CTJF83 00:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
You deleted the comment about his sexual orientation as "speculation." The cited work, "A World on Fire," mentions that possibility. The book quotes the diary of Lord Russell, British Foreign Secretary, who remarked that Benjamin was "clever keen & well yes! What keen and clever men sometimes are." Benjamin's hasty departure to New Orleans, his quick marriage to a rich woman, the fact that nine years elapsed before they had a child, and his wife's decision to move to Paris and live separate and apart from him all point in that direction. John Paul Parks ( talk) 23:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, ok, thanks for the response. John Paul Parks ( talk) 17:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi thank you for the sources. However, I fail to see how the deaths and OIC's stance relates. Did OIC ask people do demonstrate violently? Were all demonstrations violent? If neither is answered as a "yes" wording needs to be adjusted. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 06:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi F&H,long time no see. I've been away from the p. for 2 weeks. Came back for a visit and realized that much of the Talk p. should be archived. Much of it is too old with no comments for several years and others are too "bulky," as "archive help" calls it. i'm trying to archive stuff and I simply cannot figure out the instructions. Can you provide me with a simpler, clearer explanation? hope you're well, arriva derci,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey man, I promise I'll never bother you again. Honestly. I know you've helped me with this procedure before but now I'm lost. Last request. If I don't hear from you, thanks for everything. Been fun. Hope all goes merrily with you. Hope all goes merrily with you,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello friend, I see that the bot (whatever the hell that is) archived all the old stuff. Very good. Thank you! As for the 2012, I understand the protocol now--wait at least 2-3 years unless thread really really long in which case one year. Got it. Won't worry about it till next spring. But there are 3 or 4 subjects that just go on and on. I can't imagine anyone bothering to read them--especially since I pretty much resolved them with my arguments against redundancy, inadequate sources, and inaccurate information. Not trying to pat my head but just a fact. I'd love it if someone came along and added to and enriched the page. But my stuff is pretty solid and don't want to see it messed up--like above. So I'll stay in touch. Amazing that except for afformationed edits, the page has held steady for almost a year. What do you think of the GG web site below her opening pic and basic info? I think it should go. Site is illegitimate for encyc entry and says virtually nothing of interest. Who knows who wrote it? Certainly not a scholar. Greetings,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi F&H, check out all the changes Suncreaator made to the reference section. All in error! Do you think he or she just didn't check? Or just wacko. Wrote him/her and asked if s/he planned to keep working or should we undo. pretty weird. Thoughts or explanation of problems user tried to fix? Have a grand 4th and don't forget to salute the flag.
Oh yeah btw. I thought you set up the talk p. to archive after 90 days. But all that that endless conversation I had with Wiki somebody is still there and it's been way over 90 days.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the article's excellent and the refs and cits have all been updated and cleaned up. No one's made any significant change for many months which suggests to me that it's solid. Do you think it might qualify to be a featured article? What's involved in submitting it? What exactly happens when an article is featured? Is it worth the trouble?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Been away. Very interesting and intelligent WP editor responses in GHWB article. Will study and determine extent to which the GG article meets criteria, consider changes (e.g., Queen of MGM, which I can't figure out how to rephrase in dispassionate, yet interesting, prose--any ideas?) and ponder submitting to editorial board for F or GA status.. What's the difference? I think most my writing probably meets standards of scholarly peer-review but not sure to what extent scholarly is diff from encyclopedic writing. Send along any other links like Bush you come across. Meanwhile, hope life's treating you well. anon,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 14:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Fat and happy, why do you keep undoing the changes I made on Princess Dianas ancestry. I erased the part that said the her great grandmother Elza Kevork was Indian and dark skinned. When a dark skinned person marries a white man the kids don't come out white, they come out slightly ligher but the pigment never goes away and even generations later the dark pigment remains. Therefore logic and science tells us that Elza Kevork could not have been dark skinned or Indian because her children were white. Princess Diana is as fair as they come. My mom is 100% Armenian and she looks just like Princess Diana, she has pale blue eyes, blond hair and fair skin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.223.228.12 ( talk) 03:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I did quite a few, others did the rest. Dougweller ( talk) 20:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure Leland Stanford wasn't a robber baron? Here in California, in the public schools, we are taught that he was one of the "big four" robber barons (the others being Collis Huntington, Charles Crock, and Mark Hopkins). The term "robber baron" was coined in 1934 by historian Matthew Josephson for a book he wrote called The Robber Barons. Stanford did great work late in his life, founding Stanford University among other things, but he was much hated in California in the 19th Century, especially by wheat farmers, whom he gouged and put out of business by the thousands by charging outlandish rates to carry their wheat to market on his railroad lines. Some historians want to give Stanford's image a makeover and soften his reputation. In a forward to the 1962 edition of his book, Josephson wrote the following about these historians:
The article Robber baron (industrialist) describes thinking about what constitutes a robber baron and lists Leland Stanford as a robber baron.
I don't think Wikipedia should be part of this revisionist school but should tell it like it is, and call Stanford what he was -- a robber baron. Just my two cents... Chisme ( talk) 21:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
To stay awake during all your WP adventures! Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hey, you should take a look on Cher's article at the Wikipedia in portuguese. It's well ilustrated, very well written, complete and have a big number of references. It's also a featured article. You may translate it to english. Lordelliott ( talk) 20:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher
A mid-importance article supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers that was reviewed by Version 1.0 Editorial Team and selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions. The article has come a long way from a fan boy mish mash to a fair enough GA. Now is the time to take it to the next level. Currently it's going through another peer review. Please, lend a hand. Aditya( talk • contribs) 10:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a common sense ? look what you've done to this article ! -- Napsync ( talk) 17:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I have initiated a DRV here for the overrules category that you recently nominated. Savidan 18:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You undid this edit today indicating it wasn't in the source article: "though no evidence ever surfaced that the jewelry was stolen." That phrase is directly from the sourced article. Please re-read the entire article, and when convinced, redo your undo for me. I came to your talk page to avoid an edit war, thinking that you probably just missed the information by not reading down far enough in the article or something. Cheers ArishiaNishi ( talk) 01:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Your user name is now featured on Mashable.com in a bar-graph illustrating, ahem, us five Wikipedians with a few dozen edits, at least, upon Wikipedia's BLP about Mitt Romney during the Primaries to-date (altho most of my edits there--and in general--tend to be something like adding a hyphen and then afterward deciding to delete it and stuff <shrugs>): LINK.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 09:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Fat&Happy. I see you are a template guru, so I have question for you: Is it possible to unlink the links to the disambiguation page Unkown (but keep the text) in the election templates in Gatton by-election, 1803 ( check) and 13 other articles? Applying nowiki tags doesn't work... LittleWink ( talk) 21:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
But you manage to create a working template. I already thought creating a new template was necessary but I wouldn't even try to start with one. Thanks again. LittleWink ( talk) 09:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Back again to bother you! Today, a user recently replaced susan lennox pic at top of gg p. with what i consider to be a terrible AK photo. Then s/he added the SL pic to the body of the text, creating huge gap betw sections and overcrowding it as well. I wrote him/her and, arguing that previous pic and arrangement MUCH better, reverted the change and saying we might want to put the discussion on the talk p, where it now is. Perhaps you might check in and pitch your opionion. You'll also notice some other pic changes I made after user informed me of some WP image placement protocol, so the p. will look different (and better) to you anyway. Hope you're well!-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi F&H, well this whole discussion is madness now. Await your comments on how to resolve the argument, which is what it's become. An editing war, I guess. Who would have thought? It's an excellent, well-researched and written page as it stands. I'm already exhausted thinking about getting back into this page when I thought I had finished. But unfortunately I don't agree with many of his or her changes and additions which I think, and have made clear, weaken the p. And I presume you read my exegesis in which I tried to defend the section as it is.
But on another matter. Can you explain how to archive stuff on my talk page? I did it once but now i can't find a link. Thanks for your help,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Finally. You may be interested to know that after the debate plays out with Wikiwatcher and any other interested talk p. readers, I'm going to let go of the page completely. Just not look at it. This past go-round was emotionally wrenching and I spent a lot a lot of time defending the reasons for my actions. So, 1), I never want to go through that again, 2) I understand the nature of the beast and know now that pages can go up and down in quality, things that are written can be deleted, changed, etc., etc., and 3) I have to move on. This p. has dominated my life for almost 8 months. I think the page as it stands is superb and written according to the highest standard of scholarly rigor. None of this would have happened without your participation. There is still more to say about Greta Garbo. Small mistakes should be corrected. If another wants to develop it further, I hope he or she will exhaust the available research and dispassionately write material that is consistent with the quality of the current version. I don't mean to sound conceited or egotistical--I'm too old and floored by life for that--I just know my strengths and limitations as a person. So I'll be watching for a couple of more weeks and then leave its future to the Wikipedia gods.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks babe, you know everyting. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi there old buddy. Wikiwatcher just added a new image. Do you think the p. is now overcrowded? Also, should it have two photos from Ninotchka?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi it's me. Last edit on g p. is: "Robot: sr:Грета Гарбо is a good article". Can you explain to me what this is? Also, watched Camille again last night and saw that while her perfnc is good, the movie has really dated unlike others she made. So, meh.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back. Can you explain the edit, and your reversion, on May 9? Seems like the other one changed U.S. to United States and you reverted back to U.S. What was his/her and your reasoning for for this tiny change? Yours,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Another technical question: What is helpful pixie bot?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 17:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of richest American politicians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of richest American politicians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dezastru ( talk) 19:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV". Thank you. Innab ( talk) 17:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi there!
Since you have frequently made edits to this section, I wonder if you have any opinion on discussion currently under way on the Talk page.
The basic issue is whether "Sufi scholars" should mean Sufis who are scholars (in whatever area), or scholars of Sufism.
Thanks! -- Sarabseth ( talk) 23:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The entry on the Dimon page is about the $2B loss. The Krugman opinion ties it to the [Volker Rule]. My addition adds facts about Dimon and the Volker Rule to that page it is not disputing Klugman's opinions. It adds relevant facts from a reliable secondary source. From the Wiki help page 'Describing points of view': "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy." Jamesedwardlong ( talk) 18:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing my mistake. Indeed, that is what I was trying to accomplish. :-) Cosmic Latte ( talk) 00:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear F&H, you reversed the line I entered about the Weills' buying an estate in Sonoma County, placed just before the line about their $12 million gift to Sonoma State University, on the rationale that it was out of place in a section on their philanthropy. In fact there is a clear connection, as is apparent in the immediately preceding item: first they buy property in an area, then they get involved with local philanthropy. Without the estate purchases, there would have been no local philanthropic gifts. Or maybe your logic would have you delete the reference to the land purhase in the previous item as well. But it does appear to be an interesting, connected pattern. Dwalls ( talk) 05:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I recommend Chicago. Revert yourself now. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Dude, I watched the CMT special. He did promise G-d that he'd quit by the time that he was 30. And you can do the homework yourself--Alicia Sandubrae is Krystal Keith's sister-in-law (Look at her Pininterest, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) and Shelley Covel Rowland is Toby Keith's daughter. Nickidewbear ( talk) 17:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Your comment about the Lawyer's comments are wrong. Lawyers, Genealogists, and Historians all worked on that letter. It was not the opinion of the lawyer but fact. no lawyer in their right mind is going to go up against the Federal government without facts. And by the way, we won that case in Federal Court. The BIA conceded to us in front of the Supreme Court even though we didn't gain Federal Recognition. Ramapoughnative ( talk) 21:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you revisit your rvv change? You also reverted a few changes of mine there (the account I assume you meant only added to lead, not the later-sections' changes I made). DMacks ( talk) 07:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Discuss your objections here: Talk:Uma Thurman Let Me Eat Cake ( talk) 16:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
F&H,
give examples of some of the million - because the section is about the provision of the service to the Post office, although have not seen research showing provision of "licence, etc" to be the case for any other similar organisation Largehole ( talk) 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
please go to Talk of the article as your criticism doesn't seem correct, although would be interesting if the facts were made more obvious by your referencing your statement, to my knowledge, the Electronic Transfer Service is the only one of this within the U.K. of which JP Morgan Europe are the only provider of the licence and EBT, they don't infact provide the customer service,(the Post Office provide this) the EBT of benefits is known of in the states of America also. Largehole ( talk) 19:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes but the information $2-trillion isn't very informative, and something has to fill the blank parts of the article, the information is interesting to me not seeming relevant to yourself , so is not democratic to remove the information,(1:1) and is not harmful to anything to leave the information in. (if no actual information of how the sum is being used etc is given nobody knows anything) Largehole ( talk) 19:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
(1:1) F&H,
Largehole (
talk) 19:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for following-up on my recent edits on Ronald Reagan's military service section. Understanding Wikipedia's Manual of Style on military terms, I have some differences in the edits made. For instance, it appears a few of the terms should be proper, not general. It appears you have enough fights going on, so just take a look at my addition to the talk page and let me know what you think. Bullmoosebell ( talk) 08:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
You deleted a link to the most extensive article on the Force Theme that exists on the web as well as in literature. The "fansite" jwfan.com is the biggest John Williams database on the whole worldwideweb. No one except maybe Steven Spielberg and John Williams closest friends have devoted more time to everything John Williams than this website and their members.
It is by far the biggest and best John Williams website on the worldwideweb. An official site doesn't even exist anymore. So this comes as close to official as it gets. To delete a link to a great article excactly on the subject just because it is posted on a "fansite" seems very superficial and one minded to me. I encourage you to rethink your decision to exclude the biggest and best John Williams resource on the net just because you don't seem to know anything about this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.104.80.155 ( talk) 17:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Why was the Dangerfield sourced material removed? Are you familiar with the topic? 36hourblock ( talk) 20:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Standard Time ( 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) 14:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
This
[1]
My fault for not paying attention to the date. Doh... you're right of course.
TMCk (
talk) 00:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to add some lines and suggestions to the wiki page about politics. As near as I can figure, you have tossed out my entries because they were presented as facts. I'm not sure why that's a problem.
Why are you moderator of this entry? Is there another moderator I can appeal to? maybe I don't understand how wiki works. But, the info I submitted is relevant and even 100X more coherent than the incomprehensible drivel that was there before, which offered nothing to the discussion about politics and property at all. I think some pot smoking history drop out was trying to tackle the issue before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.193.73 ( talk) 06:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
If you took the time to read Asiatic Vespers you would stumble over the word "massacre". That the title is vesper instead is not the point. see also here German.Knowitall ( talk) 13:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Inclusion in this list is based solely on evidence in multiple reliable sources that a name including the word "massacre" is one of the accepted names for that event. A reliable source that merely describes the event as being a massacre does not qualify the event for inclusion in this list. The word Massacre must appear in the source as part of a name for the event.
Why are you deleting sections of the Marco Rubio article leaving no summary and not commenting in the relevant section on the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTylerToe ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why you kept erasing the same words while claiming it was minor or not even giving a reason. To me, it smells like vandalism, but I don't know how all the rules work so I'll let others berate you. 24.45.42.125 ( talk) 06:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be edit warring to keep the well-cited criticism out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation. If I understand correctly, I could report you right now for WP:3RR and have you blocked. Is this what you want or are you going to put the criticism back yourself? 24.45.42.125 ( talk) 00:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
from Mormonism and Christianity, regarding inclusion of Mormonism and/or Latter Day Saint movement in Christianity and environmentalism article without clarification.
99.109.124.95 ( talk) 01:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
cunt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slr722x ( talk • contribs) 11:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC) @ User:Fat&Happy
Please stop making changes to Islamic view of Joseph - In Islam, photos are not prohibited of Prophets; therefore you have no right to keep editing my changes; they are personal feelings they're Islamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slr722x ( talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
You lie that Sheriff Arpaio has not sent investigators to Hawaii. Or you are uninformed. Just Google "Sheriff Arpaio investigators Hawaii" and you will see plenty of articles. Please undo your lie and put the truthful version back on. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sheriff-arpaio-s-detectives-concentrate-investigation-hawaii — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetcafebooth6 ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear F & H -
You've been editing some of my recent posts, and thank you. Can you review some of the articles I've rewritten and see if they are suitable for Good Article Reassessment? Thanx. Dallas tariff, Era of Good Feelings and Bank War. 67.59.92.60 ( talk) 20:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
On July 5, 2012, you revised the block quote in this article and integrated it into the text. You also seemed to have introduced two citations from Schlesinger and Wilentz. The only sources I offered in the original were from Varon and Dangerfield.
Did you source these and add them? If not, where did they come from? Did the Schlesinger and Wilentz cits get moved from another portion of the my text? Please check. 36hourblock ( talk) 19:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont know what your game is but you obviously arent sensitive to the issue of intermarriage as it relates to the Jewish community and how it should be reported concerning a prominent member such as Mr Senor when he marries a Catholic woman. Is it something that should be noted neutrally in his bio? I think so but I guess you have the final word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.101.88 ( talk) 23:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, WTF are you doing.
CTJF83 00:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
You deleted the comment about his sexual orientation as "speculation." The cited work, "A World on Fire," mentions that possibility. The book quotes the diary of Lord Russell, British Foreign Secretary, who remarked that Benjamin was "clever keen & well yes! What keen and clever men sometimes are." Benjamin's hasty departure to New Orleans, his quick marriage to a rich woman, the fact that nine years elapsed before they had a child, and his wife's decision to move to Paris and live separate and apart from him all point in that direction. John Paul Parks ( talk) 23:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, ok, thanks for the response. John Paul Parks ( talk) 17:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi thank you for the sources. However, I fail to see how the deaths and OIC's stance relates. Did OIC ask people do demonstrate violently? Were all demonstrations violent? If neither is answered as a "yes" wording needs to be adjusted. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 06:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi F&H,long time no see. I've been away from the p. for 2 weeks. Came back for a visit and realized that much of the Talk p. should be archived. Much of it is too old with no comments for several years and others are too "bulky," as "archive help" calls it. i'm trying to archive stuff and I simply cannot figure out the instructions. Can you provide me with a simpler, clearer explanation? hope you're well, arriva derci,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey man, I promise I'll never bother you again. Honestly. I know you've helped me with this procedure before but now I'm lost. Last request. If I don't hear from you, thanks for everything. Been fun. Hope all goes merrily with you. Hope all goes merrily with you,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello friend, I see that the bot (whatever the hell that is) archived all the old stuff. Very good. Thank you! As for the 2012, I understand the protocol now--wait at least 2-3 years unless thread really really long in which case one year. Got it. Won't worry about it till next spring. But there are 3 or 4 subjects that just go on and on. I can't imagine anyone bothering to read them--especially since I pretty much resolved them with my arguments against redundancy, inadequate sources, and inaccurate information. Not trying to pat my head but just a fact. I'd love it if someone came along and added to and enriched the page. But my stuff is pretty solid and don't want to see it messed up--like above. So I'll stay in touch. Amazing that except for afformationed edits, the page has held steady for almost a year. What do you think of the GG web site below her opening pic and basic info? I think it should go. Site is illegitimate for encyc entry and says virtually nothing of interest. Who knows who wrote it? Certainly not a scholar. Greetings,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi F&H, check out all the changes Suncreaator made to the reference section. All in error! Do you think he or she just didn't check? Or just wacko. Wrote him/her and asked if s/he planned to keep working or should we undo. pretty weird. Thoughts or explanation of problems user tried to fix? Have a grand 4th and don't forget to salute the flag.
Oh yeah btw. I thought you set up the talk p. to archive after 90 days. But all that that endless conversation I had with Wiki somebody is still there and it's been way over 90 days.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the article's excellent and the refs and cits have all been updated and cleaned up. No one's made any significant change for many months which suggests to me that it's solid. Do you think it might qualify to be a featured article? What's involved in submitting it? What exactly happens when an article is featured? Is it worth the trouble?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Been away. Very interesting and intelligent WP editor responses in GHWB article. Will study and determine extent to which the GG article meets criteria, consider changes (e.g., Queen of MGM, which I can't figure out how to rephrase in dispassionate, yet interesting, prose--any ideas?) and ponder submitting to editorial board for F or GA status.. What's the difference? I think most my writing probably meets standards of scholarly peer-review but not sure to what extent scholarly is diff from encyclopedic writing. Send along any other links like Bush you come across. Meanwhile, hope life's treating you well. anon,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 14:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)