Jump to content

User talk:Display name 99/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Alpheus S. Williams
added links pointing to Democratic Party and John S. Newberry
Sterling Price
added links pointing to Democratic Party and John Jameson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Thank you for the message. The only problem was that I had been inserting links referring to a political party without remembering to put "United States" in parenthesis, as there are certainly many other "Democratic Parties" than simply the one in this country. I will keep this in mind.Display name 99 (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Filling out the FailedGA template

Display name 99, I noticed that in your two recent GA reviews, the FailedGA "page" parameter was filled out incorrectly with the name of the article. The value of the page parameter should be identical to the page parameter that was in the GA nominee template that FailedGA is replacing: in both cases, this should have been the digit "1".

Since the correctly named review page exists in each case, I've asked for the duplicate review page with the incorrect name—Talk:Balloon campaigns in Korea/GABalloon campaigns in Korea‎ and Talk:Reince Priebus/GAReince Priebus‎—to be deleted, so you don't need to do any further cleanup. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for the error. Display name 99 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging

Hello!

When you "ping" other users, the template has U| rather than U: (and then obviously {{}} around it). If you re-write the ping template for Shootseven underneath, it will send them a notification. Hope this helps. Ches (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Chesnaught555. I have changed some of my previous edits accordingly.

Oh, and sign your TP posts! :) Pings don't work if you edit the template, at least not for me anyway. You'll need to post it again. Did you respond to me on the BTK talk page? Ches (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555}, I just saw your post on the review page, and so I presume that you saw it. Display name 99 (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted to your TP beforehand. I was mobile editing. Ches (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Billy the Kid

I am pretty surprised: didn't think Billy the Kid would pass so quickly. Thanks for accepting it as a GA. It's my first. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That was no problem. The article is complete and well-sourced. I would suggest revising it to make it a bit more clear to readers unfamiliar with the subject, but overall I think that it was certainly well-done enough for it to be promoted to that title. Display name 99 (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99, I'm very sorry to have to intervene, but this is not an adequate review for GA. You have not mentioned the GA criteria, and there is no sign that you have checked against them all. Furthermore, if you believe that it should be revised "to make it a bit more clear to readers unfamiliar with the subject", then the "prose is clear and concise" requirement has not been met.
Let's take the lead. It should probably be longer and include more of a summary of the rest of the article per WP:LEAD, one of portions of the Manual of Style that nominated articles must adhere to. In addition, the "Well-written" criteria also require that "the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct". Yet the lead contains the following sentence: He was captured by Sheriff Pat Garrett in 1880, but escaped in April 1881, and evading capture for another two months. The grammar is not correct there, and it is to this level that you need to review and request revisions. I haven't read the article in depth all the way through, and as you note it looks generally clean with minor errors only, but there will invariably be mistakes and they must be found and noted in the review so they are corrected during the review process and before the nomination is passed. The general expectation is that a review will contain matters to be corrected, the reviewer then waits for the corrections to be made (the article can be put "on hold" for a week or more), and if everything is solved, then it can be passed. There is no rush here.
You should at least do a spot-check against the sources, to make sure the article does not misrepresent the information there, and also that there are no occurrences of copyright violations or close paraphrasing/plagiarism. I believe the third paragraph of the Death section is too closely paraphrased with the given source (italics show where they match): Garrett allowed Bonney's friends to take the body to a carpenter's shop to give him a wake. The next morning, Justice of the Peace Milnor Rudulph viewed the body and made out the death certificate, with Garrett rejecting it and demanding another be written more in his favor. Bonney's body was then prepared for burial, and was buried at noon at the Fort Sumner cemetery between O'Folliard and Bowdre.
Under the circumstances, Display name 99, I feel I have to unwind the review to the point just before you passed it, so you can conduct a full review. I will add the issues I've noted above to the review page to help prime the pump. WV, I have no doubt that this can become a Good Article on this review with some additional work, but it isn't quite there yet. Indeed, it is a very rare thing for a nomination to be approved immediately; your surprise was well placed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I have left a note on that article's review page apologizing for my irresponsibility and putting forth a few suggestions of my own. I recently posted another review for Obergefell v. Hodges. Would you mind simply examining that to see if I may have done a better job with that one? Thank you for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99, thank you for adding those suggestions to your Billy the Kid review. I would like to urge you to read the GA instructions page in its entirety, since it talks about the entire process, but especially the Reviewing section. It explains pretty much everything a reviewer should do in a step by step fashion, and gives you links to important resources. If you follow the steps here, you won't end up with incorrectly named review pages or the like. Among other things, it points out under Reviewing the Article that {[tq|if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself}}, so you did exactly right by removing that accidentally duplicated sentence. If you have any questions about any of the instructions, please feel free to let me know.
I'll try to take a look at the Obergefell v. Hodges review, but I doubt I'll have time today. As I've said elsewhere, there's no rush in completing a review; indeed, reviewers are typically given up to a week to finish the review, and nominators at least a week to respond with their fixes. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99, I'm letting you know I haven't abandoned the Billy the Kid article or the GA review. My time is crunched this week and I probably won't be getting back to doing much at the article until Friday. Thanks for the time you've put into helping with the review and editing the article so far. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That's no problem, Winkelvi. I'm just getting back on Wikipedia myself after a hiatus of about 2 days. Display name 99 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99 and BlueMoonset, I'd like to see if it's possible to remove the article from the GA nom list. There is a concerted effort by new redlink accounts along with another long-time editor doing everything they can to disrupt the article and keep it from becoming GA. See the talk page history for the most recent crap going on there. I will continue to work on it, and if you can give me any more suggestions for the article to be GA status (either of you), please do so. If you don't mind giving up time to do so. Right now I am so completely livid I can barely think straight. I've seen people in Wikipedia be complete assholes, but this has gone past ridiculous. To the point of literally giving me anxiety and chest pains from the anxiety. Dealing with this kind of horrible behavior is not worth it to me. I'm going to ping Floquenbeam, Ched, Ritchie333 and Drmies since they are familiar with the edit warring at the article. I'm just at the end of my rope and would rather have a good Super Bowl weekend than allow myself to be stressed over bullshit on the internet. Thanks for your help, I will be back at the article to bring it to GA, just not in the next few days. I hope it can just be removed rather than failed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I am certainly sorry this discussion has affected you like that. Once the matter of the photos is settled and there is a consensus on which photos should be included and how they should be described, I don't see why the article couldn't simply be passed. It is quite high quality overall.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, at this point, the nomination cannot simply be removed. Any nomination halted after this much work has to be given a "FailedGA" template when it's closed, but that only means that the nomination didn't end with the article being listed as a GA—there's no stigma attached. I have to apologize for not being around very much; off-wiki stuff has had my attention this week, and when I have been around it's mostly been mechanical tasks. I've been planning on posting a bit more to the review—I'll probably try to do so tonight before I turn in. There's a bit of work needed to meet the WP:LEAD portion of the GA requirement. I'm sorry things have become so stressful for you. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I think things like this might turn out a bit better for you in the future if you were to learn how not to suspect that every disagreement with you was an attempt to disrupt the GA review process. It wasn't. MaranoFan may be an exception, as the only comments that he made were about how the article needed to be failed immediately, and ultimately were not very productive. Now the photo matter has seemingly been settled. I don't see why you choosing this specific time to quit, after the litigation has seemingly ended, makes any sense. You may of course take a couple of days off, but I still want to see it become a GA. Nearly all of the work has been completed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me have a day to cool down, come back and try again. If the same disruption continues, from the same players, then something's afoot. BlueMoonset is going to give more notes (some have been given last night) so I'm not going to give up so quick, I think. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If the same disruption continues, from the same players... Winkelvi, your stance in these discussions, accusing everyone who disagrees with your edits of bad motives, agendas and "disruption," has been the most disruptive thing that has happened at Billy the Kid. Your attitude is probably also a big part of what makes people want to push back against you even when you are right on the merits. You need to take a big step back. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

Display name 99, I'm going to ping BlueMoonset on this since he is also reviewing the BtK article. I don't know if there is a specific policy regarding such, but it seems to me that GA reviewers should be neutral and uninvolved in regard to specific editors when reviewing articles for GA. This comment seems less than neutral and uninvolved to me and doesn't exactly seem fair or helpful. Maunus has made some good suggestions at this GA review, but he has also picked his share of fights and has edited and commented in a very pointy and unhelpful manner as well. In spite of what you may think of me, Chesnaught555 was actually right when he asked Maunus to not to "experiment" at the article (that was Maunus' word, not Ches', by the way) but to use the sandbox. Ches doesn't deserve to be chided because he's only been trying to do the right thing at the article. You may not like him, you may not like me, but to make a comment showing preference to an editor at the article you are reviewing seems to be bad form to me, definitely not optimal behavior for a GA reviewer. Please be sure to remain neutral and give a fair shake to everyone editing and trying to help out with this GA. It's the right thing to do and will help keep tensions low rather than high. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No he was not right, he was just rude. And no I have not picked my share of fights, YOU have picked those fights yourself. I came to the article with no negative motivations at all, in fact my first interaction with you was a compliment - which you in fact ALSO interpreted as a personal attack. And no I was completely right to remove the photo since you had been too sloppy to add a reliable source for it - and hadnt even looked at the description given at the unreliable source you provided which described it as being dubious. You are a sloppy editor with little knowledge of either editing policy, sourcing or writing. You could potentially have learned something from working with more senior editors, but by stubbornly resistin all argumentation and all proposed changes you missed that chance. Now you should go ahead and fix the references and bibliography because it is a mess and not up to GA level by a longshot.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, aren't you just a room full of sunshine and rainbows? Interesting how your take on the quality of the article just four days ago was that it was very close to being GA. The article has only improved since then, but suddenly, in your estimation today, it's horribly worse from your estimation a few days ago? Strange, that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Also see Maunus' lovely response to me here: [1]. Definitely an AGF violation, perhaps NPA. --Ches (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, first, other than perhaps BlueMoonset, we've all gotten involved in our fair share of fights. I actually think that Ches has done a good job at this article, with the exception of nitpicking over someone who was making genuine improvements to the referencing section. If you want to see something a lot worse than that, scroll up to the top of that section on the talk page, and read the first sentence of a comment written by yourself in response to an editor attempting to make constructive changes to an article. Display name 99 (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
And if you recall, Maunus was completely wrong to remove that photo, and he reverted it back in later as others noted it should not have been removed because it was an authenticated photo of the subject. But, I note that in pointing this all out, you are, once again, acting in a non-neutral manner. Please stop being "partisan" -- you are to review the article and comment on edits, not editors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, I will try to refrain from making such comments in the future, but it's difficult to stay above everything in an environment so hostile and turbulent as this. I doubt most GA reviews get this bad. You may technically be right about my comment, but we've seen far worse things so far in this review. Greater courtesy and respect should be utilized by others, and such a situation would not then occur. Display name 99 (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's true. This GA review has been more than a little "testy" at times. If you note, however, it didn't get that way until a few who have histories of kerfuffles with various editors (not just me) decided to start making waves and poking. And then there are the mysterious, suddenly appearing redlinkers who also thought they needed to insert themselves and get in the middle of disputes. I have no doubt this GA would have gone quite differently had none of this occurred. Not that I have always reacted to things in the best manner, mind you, but there have certainly been some difficult and less-than-optimal moments which had nothing to do with me at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It could not have gone differently, because the article was not GA level it was sloppily written and sourced and formatted and you reacted with hostility to all suggestions for improval. THAT is what caused the "kerfluffles".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, a user is welcome to edit an article regardless of whether or not he has created a userpage. Display name 99 (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow. Totally not my point. Please see this and, while you're reading it, remind yourself that the person making the observation is a former administrator (gave up the mop not that long ago), has over 20k edits, and has been here since 2008. Editors that experienced know what the sudden appearance of redlink accounts mean in situations such as this GA has seen. Please don't dismiss the obvious. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
As a former administrator who has been here since 2005 I can tell you what the sudden appearance of a redlink account means. It means a new editor is joining the discussion. And it means that in your interactions with them you need to abide by our policy which tells us to Assume Good Faith. You are being paranoid and rude to everyone around you, and all the negativity you are receiving from others you are generating yourself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The other former admin disagrees with you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work

Hi Display name 99, I just wanted to stop by a moment and thank you for your volunteer service here at Wikipedia, but especially for your work on the GA review at the Billy the Kid article. You should let that Jimmy Wales guy that you need to get some combat pay for that review! I have enjoyed working with you at the btk article, and hope we will work together again on another article. I was really sorry to read some of the unneeded comments that I have read at some other btk support pages. they were way too harsh and mean spirited, and many were personal attacks toward you. I stopped my count of the NPA's at seven, but I will let you deal with all that. Again I am sorry you rightfully had to fail the GA nomination for legitimate purposes, no one should blame you for anything. Good luck to you. See you around the pedia! deja vu Jilllyjo (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Jilllyjo, thank you for the message. I felt as though the attitudes of a few editors there were simply far too combative for it to be passed. The article could not by a long shot be deemed "stable," which is one of the requirements. It's too bad that happened. I appreciate your work in attempting to bring the article to GA status as well. I invited Winkelvi to nominate it in the future, assuming things stabilized, and so hopefully you will be around to help it pass the next time. Thank you. (BTW, I just saw your user page. It looks good.) Display name 99 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

you were spot on about the toxic environment amongst the editors at the btk article. now winkelvi has filed a SPI and included me and Dat Guy in the report as guilty

Please read over the report and comment about what you know. [2] Thanks, Jilllyjo (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Holy crap. I just saw it and made a comment. Jilllyjo, is there anything that happened since the review closed that I did not see that may have contributed to this? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

hi display name 99. YES, here is a repost from the post @legacy pac with the relavent diffs,

"Please have a look here [3] and also here [4] and weigh in with your opinion on the matter. Thank you. Jilllyjo (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This constitutes canvassing in my opinion. Same goes for your comment on MaranoFan's TP. As I said, your behaviour is verging on harassment. Informing editors whom he does not want any interaction with, in regards to completely different matters than BTK is unacceptable. Leave him alone. --Ches (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Ches, the solution is for WV to leave other editors alone! I'm tired of Admins protecting him when he sturs up trouble with false accusations. I have been very clear I want nothing to do with WV but that did not stop him from jumping on an 3RR thread I started. It appears to be open season on anyone WV does not like, and his victims get more abuse from Admins. How can you call out his victims for 'harrassment' when they are just standing up against the harrasser? Legacypac (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Definitely agree with Legacypac above.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for being nice and helpful must only be sarcasm. He even added it to his user page! Gave me a good laugh. Legacypac (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you two guys Legacypac and MaranoFan for your kind support. Sadly the Billy the Kid article failed GA review for a second time. We are gearing up for #3! deja vu Jilllyjo (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)"

Also there was the acting out just after you failed th GA. Winkelvi gutted the entire talk page on btk to a massive archive. That was a problem because we needed the latest posts to refer to while trying to get the article into shape for #3 try. So in the gentlest way possibly so as to try and not provoke winkelvi I restored the most recent talk page posts to the talk page so they could easily be referred to. Winkelvi immediately reverted both my edits while threatening me with edit warring. Now remember I did not revert anything, I just restored the posts after her error. So when she threatened me for edit warring I thought it best to check with an admin and ask them to restore the btk talk page archives. I posted to the talk page of Ritchie333 to ask for help. See here: [5] The night after that discussion where she was corrected by the others. she tried to have be blocked by SlimVirgin but that did not go over [6] [7], so last night she posted the strange bogus spi. Jilllyjo (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Jilllyjo, thank you for your help. I actually aware of most of this before, simply because I continued to follow things somewhat purely out of curiosity as to what might happen. I asked just because I wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing anything. I don't have a lot of time now but I'll try to keep track of what's going on over at the noticeboard. I have little doubt that the investigation will come back negative. Display name 99 (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Question(s)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you see the result of this SPI? Did you consider answering the question I asked you there? If so, where is your evidence I did the things you accused me of? Have you seen the suggestion at the Billy the Kid talk page about having the GA fail reconsidered based on the fact that JJ was a sock with the intent to harass and upend that GA nom and you, the main reviewer sided with the harasser/sock several times despite being reminded that you needed to remain neutral? Just wondering. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I was going to respond to your comment, but by the time I reached the page the investigation had already been closed. Therefore I decided not to modify it further. Despite the fact that JJ was a sock, and thereby clearly and inexcusably violating WP rules, I don't see how her edits were intentionally aimed at disrupting the process. If you want to ask someone to look at the Billy the Kid review again, go ahead. The article, as I have said, is of very high quality. The primary reason that I chose to fail it was that the GA Criteria 5, which states that the article must be stable, was not nearly met due to the contentious and improper attitudes of many of the editors at the article. I have no intention of getting involved in anything else at the article. Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
What user, now indeffed as a sock of an also now indeffed user, who had a history of disruption, hounding and harassing me (talking about the sockmaster), was responsible for the majority of the disruption at the article that caused it to become (in your words) unstable? It sure as hell wasn't me or BlueMoonset or Chesnaught or even Shootseven (after he stopped edit warring). It wasn't you. So, who does that leave? I never expected you to do the right thing by admitting publicly what really happened, how it all progressed, and how it ended up at SPI - so you don't have to say you won't be getting involved at the article again. There are editors (not me) who have expressed since the SPI findings were released that you should stay far away from the article, anyway. Look, I don't think you are a bad person, a bad editor. I still don't think you are fit to be a GA reviewer yet. Some day, maybe, but not now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, I just went to the talk page and saw the conversation regarding the potential for a new review, and that the consensus amongst the two edits there, which you are no doubt in agreement with, was that I should no longer be involved at the article. Because I had not in any way attempted to become involved once again, what then, my I ask, was your point in coming here? Display name 99 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)My purpose was what I stated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I have promised to not get involved at the BTK article, and therefore you will not have to worry about me anymore. What else do you want me to do? Are you here demanding apologies, or attempting to humiliate me for the way that the SPI turned out? I think this counts under Wikipedia:Harassment. You have come here against a now-uninvolved user to rehash old points and ridicule me for my positions in a previous dispute despite my promises to stay away from you and the review. I'm going to ping several users who have been involved here-Chesnaught555, Hallward's Ghost, Floquenbeam (talk · contribs), and Legacypac-so that they can assess your actions. I simply can't see any other motive for you coming here other than to deride to me as much as possible. Display name 99 (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Winkelvi asked you a question which you didn't answer, and wants it answered (so do I, actually). I don't see how this is harassment. I'm tired now, anyway, and am off to bed. Regards, --Ches (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Good lord. You're pinging other editors to "assess" what I've said here? And you think I'm harassing you, really? You're not capable of assessing what I've written but you fancy yourself capable of being a GA reviewer. Incredible. This is the last I'll mention the whole thing to you. I think your comments above give the whole picture all on their own. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Chesnaught555 has claimed that Winkelvi only wanted a question answered. He has ignored the truth that my response would likely have triggered a critical reply from Winkelvi, which would have in turn led to a lengthy argument which would have accomplished nothing. Winkelvi has said that he "never expected you to do the right thing by admitting publicly what really happened." So what did he expect?Display name 99 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, thank you. It did not work when I tried it, but I appreciate the advice. Display name 99 (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerns about review

Hello, you seem to be really trying to interfere with my review of the article Amir H. Jamal. I understand that you may have concerns about the review, which is why I redid the edits and have relisted your concerns. However, if you have concerns about my actions, please, leave them on my talk page. Thanks, Will211 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Will211, it was not my intention to affect you in this way. The policy statement that I quoted should hopefully make you aware of this. Regarding bringing up future concerns on your talk page, issues specifically related to the review should generally be mentioned on the review page. When I see a review page that has not been posted in for over 2 weeks, it's my job to give it a nudge. When I see potential concerns that have not been addressed in the review, I have the right to bring them up. I might not make any more edits to that page, but you should take note of these things. More people can participate in a review than simply a nominator and a reviewer. Display name 99 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was a little stubborn there. Will211 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You have to see this...

These guys kept tag-teaming after I left and have now filed an 3RR against me. - theWOLFchild 15:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

thewolfchild, thanks for the notification. I didn't see it until things were already resolved. Anyway, that was totally ridiculous. One could make about as much of a case against Wikidemon for edit-warring considering the way that he/she pounced to remove the paragraph as soon as the lock expired despite not having consensus. Anyway, I'm glad it's over. Thank you for your help at the article. Display name 99 (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Mother Teresa's Massacre in Aden

Thank you for reviewing Mother Teresa's Massacre in Aden, I worked on the project alone, and it's my first project in Wikipedia, so I suppose you will find dozens of mistakes. I will be happy if you guide me to make the article better & you can use the talk page and notify me if any thing is required in the article. 967Bytes (Contact) 16:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

967Bytes, I am actually not the reviewer for it-I simply came in to fix a few errors. However, I suppose that I can help you here by notifying you of things that would hinder the chances of the article reaching GA status. Please keep in mind that I am not the official reviewer-someone else will eventually come along and take that role.
  • The first sentence currently reads: "Mother Teresa's Massacre was a Mass murder crime committed by ISIS extremist  gunmen inside a home of elderly in Aden in 4 March 2016,[reference] 16 were killed including 4 Indian Catholic nuns, 2 from Rwanda, and the rest from India and Kenya, and including Yemeni 2 Guards and a cook, and 5 Ethiopian women and the rest volunteers, no elders were injured.[reference]" It's a bit too long and difficult to understand. To break it up somewhat, I could replace the comma after 2016 with a period. "and including" is not grammatically correct and does not fit with what is before it. For the last part, I would have: "2 Yemini guards, a cook, 5 Ethopian women, and 4 volunteers were killed."
  • The first sentence under Background does not make any sense.
  • The first part of the first sentence of the second paragraph in this section reads: "Missionaries of Charity founded by Mother Teresa in Aden works since 1992" A comma should probably be used before and after "founded by Mother Teresa," and the the past perfect tense of the verb "to work" should be used, because it is referring to history. I think "has worked" would be better there.
  • In that same paragraph, what "sounds" are you referring to?
  • Under The Attack, the phrase "downed by bullets in an open area" should be preceded by something such as "but where" to make it clear that it is referring to the nuns.
  • Once sentence says: "Some of the dead hads were tied back and shot on their heads, images allegedly for bodies of the victims and their hands tied to the back amid small pool of blood." I do not know what you mean with "hads," which to my knowledge is not a word. The phrase "images allegedly for bodies of the victims" makes no sense.
  • Regarding the quotation from the prayers of the nuns, the word "says" in the preceding phrase should be replaced with "were," which should be followed by a colon. Also, the reference should probably go after the end of the quote itself, and not at the end of the Wikipedia sentence.
  • In the first sentence of the next paragraph, "and described" should be replaced with "who described."
  • The sentence before the quote from Pope Francis should begin with a capital letter, and "saying" should be replaced with a different word.

That should be all that I will give you now. I fixed a few very obvious grammatical errors myself. The reviewer should certainly give you more suggestions once he or she begins the work, and you should be prepared to listen to them. These were simply some of the things that would likely get the review failed immediately. There is still polishing to be done. Thank you for your efforts. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99, It seems having a knowledge of the topic made me miss those simple mistakes. I have fixed all the mentioned errors you mentioned except for the quote reference part "reference should probably go after the end of the quote itself", doing so would make the quote look odd because the reference link will be in a separate line. I have removed the topic from nomination until the article is fully polished. Thank you for your efforts. 967Bytes (Contact) 20:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
967Bytes, I'm glad that I could help. I hope that the review goes well. Display name 99 (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John C. Calhoun

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John C. Calhoun you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Oceanflynn -- Oceanflynn (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Calhoun: qualifiers for historians

Hello. First, let me thank you for all the work you've been doing to improve John C. Calhoun. I haven't agreed with all of your choices, but I recognize your good will and constructive purposes, so I've tried not to interfere too much. I honestly think the article needs to be rewritten from top to bottom, not just repaired; and by a single hand, so it'll be more coherent, and will have a more logical flow, with less duplication. I want to do that, and I've been slowly assembling materials for the project; but I don't know when I'll find the time for all the reading, let alone the writing. If I do, I'll certainly consult you and Rjensen (and others, I imagine) in the process.

I'm writing you today about a minor quibble: you seem to see a need to describe historians with more than just the designation, "historian". Earlier today, you added the qualifier "Southern" to historian before Clyde N. Wilson's name. You later thought better of it, and substituted "19th-century". I was glad to see "Southern" taken away, since I don't consider Wilson a representative or typical Southern historian (though he may think of himself as one, God help us); but I also thought "19th-century" confusing, since Wilson isn't from the 19th C., but from the present day; so I deleted that, leaving just "historian". I realize (or at least assume) you meant that he studies the 19th. C. (and the South, for that matter), but I think it's best to avoid that ambiguity wherever possible. I think the majority of readers will assume that these qualifiers indicate the historian's own place or time, rather than his subject.

Since then, I see, you've done similar things with Wm. W. Freehling, finally settling on "American historian", so, rather than changing it, I thought I'd write and suggest to you that these qualifiers are unnecessary and needlessly ambiguous. I'm not entirely persuaded that any designation is necessary when we cite an historian on history, or a biographer on biography, though it would be if we cited, say, a novelist on history, or a journalist on music. If it is, though, surely "historian" is sufficient, unless the reader needs a qualifier in order to understand the reference—such as to alert her or him to the likelihood of chauvinism, parochialism, or other bias, or to suggest some philosophical or ideological influence. (E.g., "Nineteenth-century Virginian theologian R. L. Dabney wrote in defense of the South . . . ." or "Marxist historian Eugene D. Genovese noted the contradiction between . . . .") Don't you agree? Do you see such a need with Freehling? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Jdcrutch, thank you for your comments. I was asked by the GA reviewer, Sainsf, to provide some designation for the historians quoted in the article. Some of them previously did not even have the designation "historian." I suppose "historian" is adequate for most of them. By saying "19th Century," I mean to say that this was his area of focus. I see how that is confusing, which is why I removed that designation for Freehling. I don't agree with you assessment that the article needs to be totally re-written, but I do recognize the issues of redundancy between the "Political philosophy" section and the narrative sections. I've eliminated some of that-for example, when I started work on it, there had somehow ended up being two separate sections for "Nullification" and "Nullification Crisis," not to mention the one on "Concurrent majority"-but see that there is still work which can be done. I hope that you continue to edit constructively on the article, and am glad to hear of your promise to consult me and Rjensen before making any major changes. If you're thinking of consulting more than just us, I would first recommend North Shoreman. He hasn't recently contributed much to the Calhoun biography, but has edited extensively on articles from the same period. Thank you for your work. Feel free to go to the review page and add any concerns which you may have. Display name 99 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
FYI, I've posted some questions about this issue of qualifiers at the Village Pump, where, though without identifying you, I have presumptuously referred to you by the masculine pronoun, which I hope is OK. (If you have a different preference, please correct me.) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Jdcrutch, I'm not totally sure why this is necessary. I stated in my previous response that "I suppose 'historian' is adequate for most of them." If you're going just for curiosity, that's fine. But I'm comfortable with leaving "historian" as the only designation for most of those quoted in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I seemed to be challenging you or making this at all personal, or seemed hostile in any way. You've been friendly with me, and I mean to reciprocate: even if we disagree, I presume we can do it cordially and respectfully, as I think we've both done so far, to the extent that we have disagreed at all. On the Village Pump, I mainly wanted to find out where Sainsf was coming from, and to see if WP had a policy on this matter. I enjoy discussing this kind of issue, but only in a pleasant way, so I hope I haven't offended you. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Jdcrutch, do not worry. You have not offended me. I was only attempting to ensure that you understood that I am comfortable with leaving "historian" as the only designation. Display name 99 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh good. Yes, I understand that, thanks. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Dates in References

Hello. I see that you've gone through "John C. Calhoun" and changed all the dates in references from "1 January" to "January 1". It's up to you how you want to spend your time, of course, but that seems really unnecessary, since both forms are correct. I prefer dmy, myself, as does the US military, not to mention practically everybody outside the United States. In any event, it would be nice if you'd tag those revisions as "minor", so that I'll know not to check them when they show up on my watch list. Thanks again for your efforts, even if I disagree with some of your revisions. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Jdcrutch, I generally use the dmy format when citing sources outside Wikipedia, and generally prefer it. However, in Wikipedia it is not commonly used. Also, when using Wikipedia templates, I was then under the impression that the date only comes up in the mdy format. As I had recently been using more source templates in the article to account for multiple citations, I decided to change the manual citations so as to make things appear more consistent. This didn't appear to be the case, however, when I did a test edit. I considered reverting all my edits once I discovered this, but decided not to on the basis that most Wikipedia articles use a different format than the one that I originally used on the Calhoun page to cite Internet sources. Display name 99 (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Octavia the Younger

Hi, did you mean to add that Octavia the Younger was the older sister of Octavia the Elder in this edit? It seems unlikely. Rojomoke (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Rojomoke, I meant to say that she was the elder sister of Octavian. Somehow that did not come out correctly. I have fixed it. Thank you for making me aware of it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John C. Calhoun

The article John C. Calhoun you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John C. Calhoun for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Oceanflynn -- Oceanflynn (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Last name only

Please see WP:LASTNAME.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I was told once that it is best to refer to someone by his or her full name when being mentioned for the first time in the body of an article. For example, "Barack Hussein Obama was born on August 4, 1961..." From then on he should not be referred to by his full name. However, I think it makes sense to do this for the first time that the person is being mentioned in the article's body. Display name 99 (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
We'll see how long your edit lasts at the Barack Obama article, but I don't think it complies with WP:LASTNAME because the lead already mentioned his full name.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) – Hi, Display name 99 and Anythingyouwant. I am recently of the school of thought to list the full name in the first mention in the body of the article. Please summon me to any RfC on this. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

better think first tho

Lingzhi, I tried doing this for one book but when I clicked on the author's name in the citations, I was unable to link to the source. Try clicking on the "Meigs" citation-it did not get me to the correct source. In addition, I presume that this specific process will only be used for books with links to Google Books, as I will have no URL to plug in for the others. Thank you for all your help. Display name 99 (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


a suggestion for fixing book refs

Here is one possible way to make at least the books consistent. This only works for books that can be found on Google books:

  1. Open two tabs of your browser.
  2. On one, go to your Calhoun article
  3. Many of your books have links to Google books. Good! Step by step, one by one, you can right click that link, go to the google book page for that book, and select/copy the URL. (Don't open a hundred tabs right now; open one, deal with that one as described below, close that one, then open another.)
  4. Now on the second tab of your browser, go here: User:Yunshui/Userbox citeconverter, and click the link.
  5. See the text box that says "Google Books URL:"? Paste the URL you just copied into that box, then click "Load".
  6. See where it says "Author" [textbox] or last name:[textbox], first name:[textbox]? Please click the or Then click "Make citation".
  7. You get output that looks like this:<ref name="Langguth2006">{{cite book|last=Langguth|first=A. J.|title=Union 1812: The Americans who Fought the Second War of Independence|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=rnJfUZj_UwIC&pg=PA387|year=2006|publisher=Simon and Schuster|isbn=978-0-7432-2618-9|pages=387–}}</ref>
  8. In my opinion, you don't want the <ref name="Langguth2006"></ref> tags. Select only the citation template with your mouse. Copy it. Paste it into the correct position in your bibliography, putting an asterisk (*) at the front of the line.
  9. Last 3 steps: just before the terminal curly braces ("}}"), type |ref=harv.
  10. Press Save on wikipedia now. You're 99% done.
  11. Figure out how you're gonna deal with page numbers. I can say more about that later but gotta run now.
  12. Oh wait. yeah. You gotta do it for every book, to keep everything consistent. And ... eh, delete the books inside body text. May the Force be with you.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) – Hi, Display name 99 (William) and Lingzhi. I was surprised way back when when I found out that only the developer and I am in: Category:Wikipedians who use the Wikipedia Citation Tool for Google Books.
There is a generic box at the bottom of the template where you could add the harv= and the page number before you finish building out the citation by hitting the Make citation button. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I have the ubox on my upage...the doi version is helpful too... generic box? Oh, you mean "Other fields:"! I never noticed that. Tks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Lingzhi. I was not speaking of the other fields checkbox but that might be useful for something too. I was speaking of the bottom text box on the left that is generic and whatever you type into it will go verbatim into the citation when you hit the Make citation button. You can put in the pipe, the parameter name, the equal sign, and the metadata then press Make citation. Poof. Done. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi 'Display name 99'. Caught your edit and user name on the George Washington page. Just like to give you a belated welcome. I took the liberty and put a couple of user boxes on your user page just to wet your wiki' appetite. Of course, if you don't like them just go ahead and give 'em the Wiki' axe. You can find other user boxes that you might like here. There are many categories. e.g. Here are user boxes for history. Just put the code in between {{Boxboxtop|User / Interests}} and {{Boxbottom}} See you around! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, thank you for the note. I removed the userboxes because I prefer to not have them up at the present moment, but I appreciate the welcome. Display name 99 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun, 20 June 2016

Hello. When somebody reverts your edit, and you disagree, the thing to do is to invite discussion on the Talk page, not re-revert. See WP:BRD. Since you're the one advocating a change in the text of the article, the burden is on you to show that the change is warranted. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Jdcrutch, very well. The original reason for a change, as recommended in the FA review, was to remove use of the word "explicitly" in two consecutive sentences. I chose to replace it with "openly". Jefferson included a secession threat in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, thereby seeming to accept it as a last resort. However, he eventually took it out, meaning that, while he did technically support nullification, he did not loudly and freely support total withdrawal from the Union in the way that Calhoun did. As a source example, please see an article here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This discussion really belongs on the Calhoun Talk page. Would you care to initiate it there? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Jdcrutch, I can see why you would say that, although when a comment is left on my talk page, I tend to automatically reply to it there, without thought to doing so somewhere else. Would you please simply respond to what I've already written here, and not worry so much about things that would only prolong and complicate the matter? Display name 99 (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Debating about where to debate rather prolongs and complicates things, don't you think? You could have just copied and pasted what you had written up to that point. I'll do it: others interested in the article should be given a chance to comment. I'll add a link here. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is the link.

Vandalism

The user 31.178.93.173 has continued vandalizing after your last warning. 72.191.242.125 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. I added the next and final warning level to his or her talk page. Let's see if he listens. If not, I will report him. Display name 99 (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The user has continued to vandalize again. 72.191.242.125 (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The last edit was 9 days ago. I'll check on the account occasionally, but posting a message on the talk page or filing a report would look rather ridiculous now. Display name 99 (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ziad Jarrah

I have just added the source for Jarrah's "Give it to me". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.99.28 (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Please try to find a source written in English. Display name 99 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

LeRoy Homer

I am modifying the section about Homer's fate when United 93 was hijacked. The original article contains unsourced or unreliable facts on Homer's actions that day, while the people who use these keep ignoring all the more reliable evidence from observations- including the testimony of Homer's wife Melodie, not one of the thousands of far-fetched accounts given by some people- that Homer was the person who shouted "mayday" on the cockpit voice recorder, and possibly was even alive after the hijacking (notice: I say possibly, and indeed I wrote in the article that Homer's actions are just what his wife believes, while these people use speculation and fictional books as facts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.99.28 (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Larry Hogan

Hello, I did not make a mistake in removing the content from Larry Hogan, and I apologize for not leaving a description. There's no sense in having 2 pictures of the governor, so I moved the more commonly used and better one to the infobox and deleted the other one. Also, I did not think the election results box fit well where it was, but now somebody else had put another box at the bottom of the page so that problem is resolved. If you have any disagreements with this feel free to respond on my talk page, otherwise I will probably revert the edit. Natself16 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Natself16, I will respond here. It is common practice to have a conversation on the same talk page rather than switch in between. As to the edits in question, it is very typical to have multiple pictures of the same person. It improves the quality of the article and offer different perspectives on the person. You can go to plenty of different articles and see multiple images. Unless there is something wrong the image itself, or in the rare case that the article is filled with too many pictures so that they overcrowd the text, there is really no reason to remove such images. Display name 99 (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Display name 99, Ok I just don't think the December 2015 image resembles Larry Hogan very well, especially because the subject is not smiling or facing the camera. I mean, the 2nd image is the one used on the election page, and the list of governors page, and is in my opinion, a better image of Larry Hogan.
Natself16, I think the new image was intended to show Hogan while he was governor, and possibly to show a more accurate version of him following the loss of his hair from chemotherapy. However, based on some more recent pictures, he seems to have grown some of it back. I would be okay with you re-adding the original image to the infobox, but I would like for the December 2015 image to be placed in the body of the article at the very least. Display name 99 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Jefferson's draft of the Kentucky Resolutions

Hello. A short while ago, you mentioned that Jefferson's original draft of the Kentucky Resolutions argued that the States had a right to secede from the Union. I don't intend to create any controversy between you and me, but, as a matter of academic interest, I thought you might like to peruse this web site, which includes the earliest know draft of the Kentucky Resolutions (there may have been an earlier one, but it was lost long ago, probably destroyed by Jefferson himself). Although I maintain that, until 1865, the States did have a right of secession, and that such a right is implicit in Jefferson's interpretation of the Constitution, I have not found any explicit reference to a right of secession in Jefferson's draft. If you can find one, I'll be interested in having it pointed out to me. Best wishes, Jim Crutchfield. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Jdcrutch, I couldn't find any specific mention either. Thank you for providing the link. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James K. Polk may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
  • of United States Presidents by age|the shortest retirement]] of all Presidents at 103 days.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.presidentialcrossroads.com/presidential-facts-shortest-retirement/ |title=
  • Wayne |date=May 7, 2015 |website=''Presidential Crossroads'' |publisher= |access-date=July 9, 2016))</ref> He was the youngest former president to die in retirement at the age of 53. Along with [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

that is the publisher

Scribner's sons is the publisher, not the author.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Lingzhi, I fixed it. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks you for performing the good article review for my article on Voltaire P. Twombly. Your review and follow-ups were thorough yet done in a timely manner, and definitely helped me to up the article's quality. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Calhoun contra States' rights?

Hello. You recently wrote, "Calhoun sometimes went against his states' rights ideology, most noticeably by insisting that a new territory or state had no right to abolish slavery even if its people voted to do so, which was of course total hypocrisy." I'm aware that he argued that a territory could not ban slavery, but I'd be quite surprised to learn that he had argued that a State had no power to abolish it. Can you furnish a source for that assertion? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Jdcrutch, he did it in effect by opposing the admission of California to the union as a free state. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'd have to study the circumstances, but that seems like an entirely different question to me: whether or not a state has been legitimately organized and is entitled to admission to the Union, rather than whether a State (i.e., a member of the Union) has the power to regulate its own institutions. Can you easily steer me to a convenient source?
Also, be that as it may, your statement suggests that this was something he did more than once and in other cases. Are you aware of any other instances in which you think Calhoun "went against his states' rights ideology"? Or when you say he "sometimes" did it, do you mean, he once did it? ;0) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Jdcrutch, that's the only thing that I can point out regarding states specifically, but his continued opposition to popular sovereignty does show that he was more concerned about protecting slavery than with respecting the wishes of the majority of citizens in a particular a state or territory. Display name 99 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
With respect, I think you are making rather a significant error when you talk about "a particular state or territory", as if those were just two names for the same thing: Calhoun drew a clear and vital distinction between a State and a territory, with regard to the legislative powers of their respective populations. If you will go to his speech on the admission of California to the Union, and read from the paragraph that starts at the bottom of p. 591 through the top of p. 594 (and farther, if you feel so inclined), you'll see that he was arguing that the purported constitution and state of California were illegitimate (because not organized pursuant to Congressional legislation), and not for any limits on the rights of a State (other than those expressly set out in the Constitution). Calhoun may perhaps be accused of hair-splitting here, but not, I think, of hypocrisy. (On the other hand, he certainly was guilty of hypocrisy with regard to majority rule within a republic, given that a clear majority of his own State's population was utterly disfranchised—though of course he had good company in the classical republics, all of which had large, disfranchised slave populations.) In any event, whether he was right or wrong about the constitutionality of the Popular Sovereignty doctrine, Bleeding Kansas demonstrates what an utter disaster the doctrine proved to be in practical terms. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016 (2)

Information icon I noticed that a message you recently left to 67.81.195.86 may have been unduly harsh for a newcomer. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Gestrid (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Gestrid, yes, I'm sorry about that. I had dealt with weeks of vandalism/disruptive editing from that IP user, and reverted most of it myself. Because he/she had already returned to the same behavior after having been blocked, I thought it might happen again after the second block, and wanted to prevent it. Finally, I pointed out that they did wrong and corrected it many times before. But I understand that this was rather harsh. Display name 99 (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Display name 99: I realize that you were just trying to stop their behavior (which I'm not excusing). Thank you for understanding why I left you this warning. Please try to remember in the future that being harsh to someone doesn't usually lead to a good response from them. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, thank you, but I think I'd prefer to stay out of this one. Display name 99 (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Display_name_99/Archive_1&oldid=803581374"