NOTE: I will keep my replies on my talk page unless you specifically ask me to reply on your talk page. -- Sperril

Thanks for doing cleanup on the carl cameron page. I had stopped checking for the last months or so, since editing had mostly died down. And now this mess.

Basically, the broken ref lists result from the vandalism edits on Sept 26, and the clumsy attempt to undo that on Oct 4th. I suggest, instead of reconstructing the references manually, restore the whole three sections with reflist to its pre-sept 26 state (to be seen in this version). I also offer to do this myself, but wanted to seek synchronization with your work as to not get in your feet :-) Wefa ( talk) 21:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't have any big plans for that article. I actually wanted to do the same thing as you suggested but was afraid of stepping on any intervening toes. Feel free to do the restoration. It's certainly better than my ham-fisted attempt to clean it up. Sorry for the late response. I was in the process of moving my computer and hadn't been on for a while. Sperril ( talk) 17:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Sperril, We have gone through this a few times. Enlarge the photo and note the design of the tail painting, the appearance of the roundel and the numbers on the fuselage. US aircraft did not look like that. See Vietnam Air Force Then search the internet for Vietnamese Air Force 217 Squadron. You will find a color photo which clearly shows a red tail with yellow stars and compare it to the black and white photo. Lastly someone has already pointed out that the USAF did not use UH1 aircraft in Vietnam. Meyerj ( talk) 16:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll take your word for it. Still the photo credit from the source, the US Air Force, doesn't state this and simply identifies the helo occupants as "Air Force personnel." Sperril ( talk) 00:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you think Palin never said anything about death panels? Is that why you keep deleting this information? Do you think Palin didn't say much about death panels, or that no one noticed Palin saying much about death panels? She said a great deal about death panels over a period of months, and this is very well documented. This makes it very relevant to Palin. Her death panel statements are notable in that a large number of people noted them due to a firestorm of media commentary. Why try to pretend that her death panel statements are other than what they are: very well documented, very relevant to Palin and a very notable political opinion of Palin's?

Palin said much more about death panels than about issues that are given much more space in the article. It seems like an WP:UNDUE violation to mention more minor issues and not death panels. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 15:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Did you read what I wrote on the talk page? I said the "death panels" issue was notable enough to be mentioned under her Health Care position. I asked that we come to a consensus on how to do so. Her "death panels" statement was related to her opposition to the health care reform plan. This already has a bullet and any mention of her statement should be within her "health care" position. Sperril ( talk) 20:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Didn't you delete that version? Also, Palin said much, much more about death panels than about tort reform or vouchers, so you seem to have strange priorities for persistent mass deletions. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 09:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Did you think that Palin said more about the death penalty, gay marriage or tort reform than about death panels? If so, that would explain what you delete, and what you don't delete. Such an assumption would also contradict many WP:WELLKNOWN and well-documented facts to the contrary. If you persist with mass deletions, could you come up with a more consistent way of telling the story you're trying to tell? Jimmuldrow ( talk) 09:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

However, if you come up with enough reliable sources to prove that Palin said more about the death penalty or vouchers than about death panels, I'll say your right as soon as this happens. Come up with some well-documented evidence for this unlikely story, though. The references you delete mention many things that Palin said about the issue, but are partial. She commented on death panels at least from August through November 2009. If you add the amount of statements made by others about death panels, compared to statements made about Palin's other positions, you keep deleting what Palin talked about the most, and leaving many statements that were very minor by comparison. Please come up with a better reason than that for endless mass-deletions. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 09:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Try to understand why a huge number of well-documented facts make what you keep deleting, and what you don't delete, seem very upside down and backward. You should leave what Palin mentioned the most, and what was most notable in that so many people noted it. I hate to use a word like dishonesty, but it's very difficult to perceive an honest explanation for the overall pattern of your deletions. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 09:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You are answering arguments that I've never made. I'm not arguing that the information is not factual. I'm not arguing that she didn't say much about it. I'm arguing that the information you are including is already fully covered in a different article and doesn't belong in a simple summary of her political positions. In any event, this is a content dispute and belongs on the talk page of the article so other editors can weigh in. My issues with your edits are clearly listed on the talk page. Sperril ( talk) 11:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

It's a summary. The main article should mention more detail. Most of the information you keep deleting is links to other articles to begin with. Also, it's very unreal for the main Palin article to communicate that Palin mentioned the death penalty, tort reform and maybe, perhaps a brief little mention of death panels as well. Maybe. How unreal a story is that?

A very, very unreal story to make up. You can still read current news stories that mention death panels most of a year after the story began. Could we avoid any more extreme WP:UNDUE violations?

However, it would be completely accurate to make it clear that Palin said many, many things about death panels and perhaps a very brief mention of tort reform and so forth. Let's be real. And honest. Especially before doing endless mass deletions of sourced material that is very WP:WELLKNOWN and well documented. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 10:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article talk page so other editors can give their opinions. I will no longer discuss it with you here. My objections to your edit are on that page. Sperril ( talk) 11:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I replied at COIN in case you don't have it on your watch page. OlYeller ^Talktome 23:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello Sperril! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the biggest mistake I did, I assume good faith on being careful on Huggle. Mohamed Aden Ighe ( talk) 23:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply

This user has asked for Wikipedians to give him/her feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his or her edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/Katarighe. -- Mohamed Aden Ighe ( talk) 21:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Just quietly, I have no qualms about discussing my edits. Those people trying to remove my work are not out for discussion. If they choose to undo my edits then they should respond by being involved in the discussion with me. They are simply trying to bias the page because they don't want information there which runs contrary to their own interests; theories etc. I could see your point and have made the addition more encyclopaedic and that is helpful, but these people will continue to blindside the work without helpful discussion. That is unacceptable and indicates a desire to simply make sure my work is never allowed to be part of that page. It is my duty to therefore report that as exactly the type of behaviour that this site does not want to be involved in. I see no other course of action given I am not going to sit by and let the work sink because divisive tactics have been employed to do just that. There are people at the start of the page who commented about lack of understanding associated with wave functions and my addition has provided an essential aspect that is enforced in early physics anywhere around the world concerning that understanding. Again, I understand your comments and have acted accordingly however until those other people debate this correctly, I will continue to move down the path of a higher administrative review. These people don't own this site. Thanks

Nvallejo ( talk) 05:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC) reply

No worries. Like I said, I'm wholly unqualified to take part in the scientific discussion. My only issue at all was that the addition seemed more like a textbook or lesson plan than an encyclopedia. If the others involved in the content dispute are unwilling to work with you, and you feel there is a WP:OWN issue, feel free to elevate it. I haven't looked into the dispute in any detail and really can't comment on it. Sperril ( talk) 15:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks again for your reply. It would be better for this site if there were more people like you involved in it, that is the type of help I am talking about. Correction where correction is due.
Kind Regards Nvallejo ( talk) 00:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi - Instead of vandalism how about a G10 - Attack Page notice? He isn't rally vandalizing...rather creating a page undermining the United States/Obama. Touch Of Light ( talk) 02:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I was thinking the same thing just as you messaged me. I agree I used the wrong tag. Sperril ( talk) 02:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply

All good. Thanks for understanding! Touch Of Light ( talk) 02:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I replied to your comment on my own talk page. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 20:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey Sperril. Just to double check what i've done this time is OK! Basically we dished out a whole load of retro flyers and programmes and i was just typing out what they said- i've tried to omit anything that seems not to be a) morally neutral and b) an advert for the festival. I hope this is ok, and thank you for the time to let me know what was incorrect! Bigfinn03 ( talk) 02:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC) bigfinn03 reply

It looks much better to me. Thanks for taking your time to consider my revert and suggestion. I have a few minor quibbles, but I think your edits are in a state now where any remaining issues can be taken care of by the editing community at large. Sperril ( talk) 03:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Why you tag my article as Promotional? Please remove that tagging. I explain about the article's on talk page.

Thanks

Shelley123 ( talk) 06:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply

The purpose of the article seems to be to try to put people into contact with the company. It uses obvious promotional language such as "to secure their retirement futures with insurance and annuity products they can depend on through all market cycles" There is no references to independent coverage of the company. In fact, the only external link is to the company's own website. An administrator will review the article and make a decision on it. But if you intend to improve the article, you are free to do so in the meantime. Sperril ( talk) 06:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply

hi i was not sure where to comment but any way i didnt write anything about hyuna i love her someone hacked into my account

Hi, I know you supported me in the discussion surrounding the Australian Greens being left-wing. Could you possibly support me now and Strongly Oppose the proposed Topic Ban on Australian Politics for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_actions I would be really grateful. I may have been a bit silly about it all, but I can and will learn from my mistakes without a ban. Welshboyau11 ( talk) 08:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC) reply

you leave content on article_talk there and never molest it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.140.34 ( talk) 02:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Who is a terrorist? Jill Kelley? The FBI folks? I don't have a clue what you are even talking about. As for your second point, this is from the BLP policy:

"BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories."

and

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate."

If you want to put the information back you will need a reliable source that mentions the relationship between the FBI employees and Jill Kelley. I didn't see this information anywhere in the sources you provided. If I missed it, please let me know. I'll even help you add it to the article if it's true. Sperril ( talk) 20:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi Sperril. Thanks for returning to the discussion on the Jim DeMint talk page over the weekend. I've continued to discuss my draft with Biothmors today, but have not been able to get any specific feedback that will help me make improvements. If you had any specific thoughts to share I would really appreciate it. Thanks! Thurmant ( talk) 18:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC) reply

You have my apologies. I've been very busy with work all of a sudden. I promise I will get back to it. At this point, I'm going to try to get some more eyes on the change to see what can be hammered out. Sperril ( talk) 23:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi again, Sperril. No need to apologize, and thanks for your continued help here. I'm a little hesitant to participate in the discussion on the DeMint talk page now that Biosthmors has steered the conversation towards compensation so I'm not sure how to proceed. I certainly don't want anyone spending their time on this if it isn't something they want to do. I agree getting more editors to look at the section is probably the best idea now.

Before Biosthmors suggested I take my request to COI/N I was going to reach out on WikiProject Conservatism and WikiProject Biography/Politics and government. (So far I have asked at WikiProject Politics and left messages with two editors who have reviewed my earlier requests on this page.) Do you think it'd be a good idea to go ahead and post there or how were you hoping to get other editors to join the discussion? Thanks! Thurmant ( talk) 21:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I've asked again on COIN to see if I can get some more eyes on this. I'm willing to wait a bit and see what other editors think. You are, of course, free to ask for more eyes from the projects you've mentioned. I might suggest holding off a bit on providing specific notification to the Conservatism project for two reasons. First, I would imagine members of the project are already watching the article. Secondly, it might appear to be canvassing for partisan input on one side. There is no rush to hit every possible board to attract other opinions. We don't have a deadline. Sperril ( talk) 21:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I understand your concern about going to WikiProject Conservatism. I'll plan to hold off on reaching out anywhere for the next few days and see if anyone shows up from COI/N. If it's still quiet on Monday I'll probably post at WikiProject Biography/Politics and government. Thanks! Thurmant ( talk) 20:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi again, Sperril. Maybe you've seen my message on the DeMint talk page, but I wanted to let you know that I've gone ahead and left a message on the WikiProject Biography/politics and government talk page since the discussion on the Talk page has been quiet since the 25th. Thanks! Thurmant ( talk) 15:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

For putting up with me ranting about a third-party. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, Sperril. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Sperril. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Willis Reed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunday Night Football ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, Sperril. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello Sperril! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply