User talk:Fat&Happy/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Chuck Norris

Hi. Concerning this article, where we've both reverted Michaelt54's unsupported, unsourced edits (you've done so multiple times), I note that those edits likely fall under the purview of WP:BLP but that you haven't warned the user. I did so once, and he blanked my warning, thus acknowledging it. Now it has turned into an edit war. I just warned him again, this time on 3RR grounds, and if he re-adds the material again I'm going to file a report at WP:EWN. Your continued reverts are probably 3RR-exempt because of the BLP thing, but the back and forth shouldn't continue like this anyway, and sometimes there's collateral damage from noticeboard reports, so I wanted to give you a heads-up. (My guess there'll be an ANI thread in the offing, so all of the above may be moot.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've noted the blpvio reasoning in some, but not all, of the edit summaries (I get bored easily...). And I don't have a lot of confidence the warnings will change much, but I'm feeling a bit lazy today and didn't feel up to opening an official complaint. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I found the info in a townhall article where Chuck Norris is reviewing Ben Stein's Expelled Movie go look it up yourself. Chuck Norris Supports Inteligent Design movement if he is a christian creationist. My edit is Supported it's in the Townhall.com Article michaelt54 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelt54 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is my source http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2008/04/22/win_ben_steins_monkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelt54 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal interpretation of his article and the correlation between the two beliefs. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Michaelt54, that source doesn't meet the guideline, and your interpretation of it is synthesis. If you'd like an additional opinon, please feel free to open a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If there's consensus that I'm reading this wrong, great. Otherwise, it looks as if you're violating a certain policy that some people take very seriously around here. I advise extreme caution. Rivertorch (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck is a Commentator http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsBvEnaXtgo--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to grab an English-language dictionary and look up "redundant", and also "parent" as it applies to a hierarchical schema. Then check WP:Categorization. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

WHAT?? did you watch the video? he says "i'm a commentator" --Michaelt54 (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

WHAT?? Did you even glance at the categorization guidelines? WTF does the YouTube video have to do with this? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes i did read the guidelines. In the video Glenn Beck says i'm a commentator not a real journalist--Michaelt54 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Good. Try re-reading the part that says "This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." Hence "redundant parent". Fat&Happy (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The commentators section is not a subcategory its says category on the top of the page. Other people like Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Neil Bortz, Mike Huckabee, and Ann Coulter are in both the American Political Pundits and Commentators categorys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelt54 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Warning

This is your only warning that any more edit-warring on the Norris or the Beck articles will result in a block. Despite this warning, you may still be blocked by a different admin. Please read my comments at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• In case you're not watching the report at F&H, please review my latest comment and respond to it. If you don't wish to respond, which is your right, I would appreciate it if you would tell me here that you prefer not to so I can at least know that your silence is intentional. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Noted. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Ratner

Stop edit warring on the Bruce Ratner article. You saw that I'd put in the Gawker piece which also labelled him "controversial" and your deletions only make me think you're just opinionated in favor of one side and editing in bad faith. What's with the bit about being "unrelated to surrounding content"? Being one of the biggest lobbyists in the state colors and touches absolutely everything about a developer's work. And your targeting of my edit is hypocritical: What about the lack of transition between the Dodgers move in the 1950s and the Russian oligarch buying up most of the Nets? Why would a Russian born in 1965 in Moscow give two cents about an American baseball team's move before he was born? I didn't delete that because the transition wasn't adequate enough to me. Grow up.Aichikawa (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Aichikawa, I am not going to edit the Bruce Ratner page. But you might want to reconsider being too prideful of an edit that begins "Ratner (he..." Gulbenk (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

michaelt54

I just want to say that i'm sorry and I have learned my lesson. I will no longer be a problem and I have a favor to ask because I got in trouble for deleting material off of your page, will you delete my posts off of your Page? I want a clean start. I will understand if you dont't want to because i was a problem, but i will no longer be one.Michaelt54 (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Garbo formatting

Hello f&H, I just read a very good (and interesting) article in the New yorker about silent pictures. He writes a lot about Garbo (really more than anyone else) and I'd like to add a few sentences citing the article. Will you help me format the citation? I've looked and can't figure it out. Here's the cit: Denby, David. "'The Artist' and The Art of Silent Acting." The New Yorker, Febuary 27 2012: 74-78. Thanks. Hope you're feeling OK about everything. Did you post the confederate flag on your talk p.?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why my post formatted the way it did--you know, with section title Garbo formatting in the center. Plus, your page is empty. Have you decided to stop editing own WP?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Everything on the page is centered vs. Left justified. ????--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man. It looks perfect. I'm just fascinated by your knowledge of WP protocols. I have another one. Check my talk page when you have time. Hope all's well with you. Why no other subjects on your page anymore?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Got all the new stuff done. For a long time I've been trying to convey the unpreceded "sensation" she was during the silent period because of her her eroticism and revelatory acting technique. So I think this material conveys this to some extent. Thank you thank you for your formatting help. To express my appreciation I got rid of that faulty comma :)) I'll expect some changes from you as you read the material.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

meant to say unprecedented. Though unproceded works too, even though it's not a word. The kind of thing my students write.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Pi Kappa_Alpha". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 02:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please help improve Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilogin123 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 October 2012‎ (UTC)

GG citation

It's me again! Hello F&H. I finally found a clear, single source and statement, by noted silent screen expert Kevin Brownlow, to add the erotic element of her early films. I've spent the last hour trying to figure out how to cite it. Can you help? It's from the documentary section at the end of her legacy. Many thanks,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you withdrawing from WP work? You have nothing in your talk p.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Bravo, as always-- Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Garbo cit

12/6/12 PLEASE READ THIS FIRST: F&H, please explain. I continue to write stuff on your p. that doesn't show up in the preview. what Gives? Again, it may show up when I save it but what's the problem? If you can't read it at the bottom of this section, you'll find my response to your most recent post on my p. in the editing section.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. So, I can promote the Brownlow quote to the body of the p. and eliminate the quote from the cit., right? the cit would end, then, with |minutes=15:27-15:42.}}

Now, I want to get started on correcting what I can in the citation. I've done everything necessary except add the minutes into the film. Since I'm going to promote the quote into the body of the p., I won't need the |quote=blah blah.}} But, I experimented on my talk p. (I don't even understand the sandbox thing. Never helps with citations) and cit didn't show up. So, literally copied the citation as you wrote it but when I previewed or saved, it didn't show as it would on the p. as yours did, as you can see below. What am I doing wrong?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As for example,:<ref name=TCMBrownlow>{{Cite video|title=Garbo|year=2005|last=Brownlow|first=Kevin|authorlink=Kevin Brownlow|publisher=[[Turner Classic Movies]]|medium=Television production|minutes=15:27–15:42|quote=Appropriate quote from time shown backing up statement.}}</ref>

Thanks. Sorry :( OK. I think it might be more effective to put the Brownlow quote "in-line," as you say,because I can say, "Silent film expert Kevin Brownlow states that...." Do you agree that this would be more powerful? I'm amazed you went right ahead and found the data yourself. Now all I have to do is watch the damn documentary again to get the minutes. :( again. Then, I'll just copy/paste your citation with the minutes.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Done! Thanks so much, F&H. Now it's on to make some improvements to her innovative acting style in the legacy section. This is really what I find most fascinating. So I want to get it right. Statements from a critic and a director in another documentary, GG: A lone Star, AMC, with different kinds of credits so when I get to it I may ask for more help.

As you can see, the rest of my life is pretty boring but I am a musician as well as a WP obsessive.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, never gonna happen on my end. I'll just spend an hour or two trying to do do it and then turn to you for help. But YOU could do it if it if youre up for it. :) ! I'll be back in touch in a few days for the usual help in citing another of the documentaries which has different production details. Has producers and so forth but no writer, like Brownlow. THe new citations need to reference interviewees in the video, the AMC documentary which looks like I cited incorrectly in the legacy section (I saw when I checked the TCM citation there.) I'll most certainly be back in outer space. But at least this time I quoted them and identified the location of their commentary in the video. I hate dealing with all this technical wp stuff because I struggle with it so much and then my day is gone. Yesterday I spent a lot of time trying to figure out the citation myself and Poof. Another afternoon or morning gone. Today I lost a half a day of grading to go through the labyrinth I created with you. Thank god for people like you.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

READ THIS FIRST: I think I solved the problem. I will now make the change in the G. page and see how it appears. I don't know how to see how it will appear on talk pages though I know you can since you've done it. Anyway, a lot of strange stuff happend, reflected in text below, but you might not want to waste your time reading it. May be back later.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, everything came out well. Only problem is that everything's the second AMC cit is exactly like the first. It seems obvious that there's a way to just cite commentator, video, and minutes into. Any ideas?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

READ THIS LAST SINCE I HAVE SOLVED THE PROAs promised, I solicit your help again. Now I'm trying to cite another quote from a documentary but the "parameters"? are different. In this one, there's no author. It's a film critic in the video who makes the comment. His name is Ty Burr Here's what I've come up with and of course it doesn't work although it seemed to on my talk p. where I experimented. Weird. The cit information isn't showing up on your page but you'll find it in the edit section. All these mysteries. Perhaps you can explain this one to me while you're at it.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

More text that I wrote to you isn't appearing when I preview. See below. Half the stuff I wrote you in the edit p. isn't appearing when I preview. Although it may magically appear when I save. All of this confirms to me that life is fundamentally unknowable. I'm sorry to involve you in this incoherent insanity. I hope you can follow this.

here's the cit I wrote:

Back again. Bizarro for cfb. When I save the p., News Flash! the reference number comes up. But of course I can't get to the citation.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You might want to link Ty Burr and George Sidney, which adds some air of credibility to their opinions as well as helping non-classic-film-buffs to learn more if they're interested.

Don't know what you mean by this. Perhaps you can give me a sentence.

I've never been particularly good on these fine grammatical points, but since Sidney has been dead for ten years is it better to say he "added" rather than he "adds"?

counterintuitive but "adds" is grammatically correct even though I've used past tense as verb for others' statements. Has nothing to do with whether or not he's dead. (also by saying "added" you're saying he or she is literally adding on to what the previous person said.) Basically what I'm doing is saying, Finally, I'm adding on to everyting I've writtien by saying that so and so said blah blah.

I think I'd eliminate Ty Burr from the citation, either showing it as authorless or, my preference, adding the director, Steve Cole (according to TCM). This could be properly qualified by substituting "|author=Cole, Steve (director)" instead of "|last=Burr|first=Ty".

Sounds good. Will do.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nixon talk page notice

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

HELP

F&H, I really need your help on this. Someone is doing great damage to the G page in an edit about ONE friendship during her retirment section. The citations are invalid and s/he's written text about this guy Sam Green than is spent on her entire career at MGM. What should i do?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've taken his/her stuff out. It's absolutely crazy!! A section the size of her legacy and her MGM career on two friendships she had at the end of her life--and she had much much longer and influential friendships with 3 others throughout her life. These guys were of secondary or tertiary importance. It's her career and legacy, of course, that are important. Who cares about these two guys? Anyway, our correspondence is on the g talk page. I told him to add his edits to the talk p. because of course the conversation makes no sense without it. Do you know how to submit articles, or parts of articles, to WP editors for arbitration? I hope you're still somewhat interested in this project.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, well I think I've made the case on the talk p. for reverting the edits so you can sort of brush aside the stuff I wrote above. I made a complete argument on the G talk page. Now, if you could help me with two WP things:

I can't find a clear statement on a WP p. that states what are unacceptable sources. I learned that the one I have is an inactive p. (virtualy all his cits are from a GG web site that is written "by fans for fans." Clearly unacceptable, I would think.

How to initiate an arbitration with a mediator if this debate goes on. I hope you're still me. Try to see what this editor has added and I'm sure you'll agree it damages the article. Thank you FH

GG links

Thanks! Hope you have some fun over the holidays. I'll probably be back in touch. YOu know me!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would have caught de RothSchild (if it merited inclusion) but how did you put the accent over the e? Just curious in case I ever write a French page :)

Trident has been very quiet for the last couple of days. We'll see if he decides my arguments are correct. You know, I'm happy he introduced one of G's friends to the p. (but didn't add such trivia as her bathing nude with him in Fire Island, etc., etc., and more and more). I look forward to additions. But I'm also protective of the basic integrity and balance of the article until the day I force myself to stay away from it. I wish WP would ban me from editing!Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Don't ustand the blocking thing but will deal with it if necessary.

NOW. You thought you were done with me? Never, it seems, though I truly have no more to say about GG. Now, I'm trying to add a much needed citation to the MdA page. It comes from a scholarly journal article in 2000, too early to be posted online. Here's the info, below. As always, I tried to format it myself but failed. Can you help me? Here's the citation:

Patricia White, “Black and White: Mercedes de Acosta’s Glorious Enthusiasms.” Camera Obscura (2000) 45: 15. 226-265. Hopelessly yours,Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

MdA ref

Thank you much! should I do the <ref and </ref at each end? Yes. I know the answer to that question. They'e always needed

I just don't understand how you know this stuff. I spent quite a bit of time with WP citation links to find the template but got nowhere. Do you have a link for ref cit templates?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Went to the p. to put in your template and saw that an editor reverted my lame attempt, leaving out the online links you found. I think I'll keep them out since they're not helpful in identifying the author's relevant point. Now I just need to get the essay again for the pp numbers. Still interested in your help in finding cit templates for various sources if you have time. Or perhaps you just figure it out?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't know what the 45 means. Not 45th issue "overall" since the journal, I just learned, has been published, 3 times a year as you note, since 1976, so that would mean oa 36th. The very reliable Project Muse identifies the date as 2000 so that's good enough for me. It's possible that 1) it's the 45th issue that's online and 2) the hard copy was published in 2000 and the web version in 2001. Typical web confusion about pub dates. Thanks VERY much for the WP links for cit templates. Much of it still confusing and hopefully I won't be citing anything for a while. One more question. How do you preview a citation you've drafted on a talk or sandbox p. before you put it in the article?Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Per legitimacy of the feminist perspective. White’s is a critical study but that’s what most studies of people are-biographies and so forth. Thus, I think her assertion about the allusions is legitimate. It is not a feminist perspective in this part of her article it’s an objective evaluation of MdA’s book she needs to give in order make her overall argument. The problem with this matter is that, as I’ve stated in the article, MdA has been brutally misrepresented in virtually every description of her that I’ve read and I’ve read quite a lot. There’s a dearth of accurate information about her. Her biographer has straightened the record finally, as I say in the article. She’s usually portrayed, as this guy says, as “a perverse psychopath” and he’s right. Typically people refer to her autobio, e.g. as a “tell-all” which is simply wrong. The C. O. author is correct and of course I can’t put my personal understanding in, which is what I’ve done (though no one has requested a citation.) Citing her biographer is difficult in this particular instance because he doesn’t explicitly state that the characterizations are inaccurate it’s just implicit throughout his book. White’s article is the only scholarly source I’ve found that evaluates the biography accurately. Perhaps I should just remove the cit.

Your thoughts? In any case, if it stays in I certainly agree that the C.O. author’s name should be cited. I didn’t catch it. And you make a good argument for putting in the link to the article.

Switching gears, I must be missing something. If you’re testing a cit template in a talk p. or sandbox, which I do, why does it matter if you fail to delete the Reflist before doing a final save? You can just go back and delete it, right?Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In Sum: I'll add the author's name to the cit and try to find some reviews of Shanke's book and see if I can get a ref there. Meanwhile, thanks so much for all your extremely intelligent research, observations, and help. Happy holidays to you. Ciao ciao, Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

MdA cit and reflist

Thought you had gotten rid of me? I'm Back! I tried your reflist solution (to seeing what a cit. would like like before saving) and I must be missing something but of course I failed. Problem is, I don't know where to put the author's name in the cit. The fact is, as I was saying yesterday to my accountant, "I'm not a computer person." Can you help me by just putting the author's name (White, Patricia) in the ref? Section: Later Life, controversial Autobiography, after "allusions to homosexuality," 2nd line I'd really appreciate it, and thanks, F&H.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

MdA ref

Thanks so much, fh. much yuletide cheer to you.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas - 2012

Christmas Greetings. Have a good holiday and relax. Kierzek (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

watchlist

Hi fh, happy new year! Hope you're well and had a couple of good times during the holidays. OK. Problem. I checked my watchlist today, as usual, and all the edits had disappeared. Checked 1 day, 1 week, 1 month etc and came up with 0 edits during those time periods. Searched all watchlist material and google. No luck. Can you explain what happened and what I can do about it? Thanks,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Everything checks out as you say. Yes, your message on my talk p. is there. I just don't know why everything was deleted. I could ustand say, everything after a certain time frame. But then, of course, items would have been deleted one or two at time rather than all at once. This appears to be a mystery. Automatic deletion is not listed in the watchlist article and as so often happens, I can't get anywhere with the help link. Oh well, if anything pops into your brainy head, I'm always grateful for it! Meanwhile, best greetings to you,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Now I'm truly flummoxed. Looking for help, I got to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29/Archive_73#Best_way_to_save_watchlist_items_for_more_than_the_max._7_days.3F I clicked on the little arrow-link (what are those called?) and zap! wham! va voom! my watchlist with the past thirty days of stuff appeared. Still, when I click "my watchlist" at the top of my own page, only your message appears. As mysterious as 3d "printers". I'm hoping you might find this problem to be a interesting challenge to attack :) --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fat&Happy

Do you have an interest in Gerald Ford?

Then maybe you might have an interest in joining WikiProject Gerald Ford! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the life, career, and presidency of Gerald Ford.

We're very much a new project, so you have the opportunity to help form the design and structure of the WikiProject itself in addition to creating and improving content about Ford. You are more than welcome to join us by adding your username under the "Participants" section of our WikiProject page. Everyone is welcome, and you are free to contribute where and when you like.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask a member, and we'll be happy to help you. Hopefully we'll see you around the WikiProject!

You received this invitation in view of your significant contributions to the Gerald Ford article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

New Article review

F & H -

You've edited some of my articles in recent months (Second Bank of the United States). Take a look at my submission for a new article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Report_on_a_National_Bank

What gives? Do the reviewers have any experience editing US history articles? Or is this pretty standard when an editor submits their first article?

You know, it used to be, when you wanted to "call somebody who cares", it only cost a dime. Regards. 36hourblock (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Thanks

This user helped promote Rahm Emanuel to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Rahm Emanuel, which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Hotels

Hello, Fat&Happy. You are invited to join WikiProject Hotels, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of hotels, motels and lodging-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

University Degrees

University degrees are considered honorary suffixes.

"In real life," names are written in the following format:

Prefix. Given name followed by surname, honorary suffix(es)

(e.g., Dr. Jack Layton, Ph.D.; Dr. Gregory House, M.D.; Mr. Mike Layton, M.A.; etc.)

Why remove the honorary suffixes from "real" individuals? If they have earned them, they have the right to include them in their name, so Wikipedia should display their suffix(es), however minor, in those individuals' biographies.

--RandomKelvin (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Joe McCarthy

Im extremely new to Wikipedia, so this is probably the wrong way to go about it, but I just wanted to say that somebody is sabotating your work on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_McCarthy#Legacy page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evighedspanda (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Confidence trick

How about reinstating the text I added -- since it does not refer to anything specific -- but leaving out the photo? Would that work for you? Much of the article is unsourced anyway, so it seems unfair that you would remove my unsourced stuff while letting the bulk of the article stay as is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi there, sorry about this [1]. I wish someone had of pointed this out to me earlier because I have been putting the correct article titles in the wikilinks of alot of articles over the last while, to avoid them redirecting. I'll stay away from editing wikilinks now, but what should I do about the other articles I already edited? Do I have to go back and revert my edits? I really don't know, so any advice here would be appreciated. Thanks, and again, sorry. Cmr08 (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey there faggot

I see you don't like no queero-sexual stuff on your gay icon talkpage to Fred "I like it in the ass, now I hate myself and the world for it" Phelps. Well just so you know I read the BLP page and there is nothing on there that suggests I can't paraphrase what's in the source. The woman claimed his overt hatred of homosexuality, like your own denial to giving it up to Bubba, demonstrates the "the lady doth protest too much". Nevertheless being a barely intelligent inbred southerner you scream "BLP vio" throw your little manicured hands in the air and delete: oh what a prissy queen you are. I see you've been blocked for edit warring - what a nobody IRL you must be!

BTW just so you know - cos I might be smarter than you on my worst day - editing my comments is a violation of WP:TALK because I was paraphrasing the source's assertions not my own. Secondly like every whiny fag cocksucker on this site, when it comes down to it, all you did was take a sanctimonious tone to hide the fact you're really just got a WP:IDL boner. But hey as a redneck you're already denying it to yourself any hows! Have a nice day y'all! 86.176.8.4 (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales

Please see my comments on the above page. Deb (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi, Fat&Happy. I've reverted a deletion you made to the Sons of Confederate Veterans article. The content you removed is indeed in the cited source. That source is several pages long, so perhaps you missed it? Expanding the source link (click "See full page" at the bottom of the first page) and then searching for the word "recruited" should take you straight to the relevant portion. I must say, however, that I share your concern about the quality of the source itself. I'll see if I can find additional sourcing, and if not, I'll raise the issue at WP:RSN just to be sure. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Vanessa L. Williams

Sure, glad to take a look. Disagreements are cool; it's all in how one treats other people. I've always found you an exemplary editor and I'm happy to be a colleague. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Kirsten Gillibrand

Please don't disrupt articles to make a point. You can discuss the issue on the talk page, but you're not going to get your way by edit warring, and certainly not by having a temper tantrum. I'm inclined to agree with some of your points, but if you persist in disrupting the article, I will lock it. There's no need to panic; everything will work itself out in time. Discuss the issue instead of edit warring, not in addition to it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 00:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I've mentioned your name at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Joe McCarthy.3BMcCarthy Army hearings. Acroterion (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Steven Crowder

• Please refer to the talk page regarding Steven Crowder before making any changes, per Wiki's consensus building procedure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Method_for_consensus_building

Thanks, JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Mapping the Global Economy

Hi Mr. Fat&Happy, I am looking for volunteers to re-create the link below for all 196 countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States The goal of this project is to map out the global economy. Here is the project page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabber091 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Continent

Hi Fat&Happy,

I dont know how to send you a message, you will be able to delete that after if you want. I have seen that you reverted the changes I made on the continent page. I have spend my day reading the talk page because of the issue raised by the Oceania/Australia issue.

It seems Australian are taught that Oceania does not exist, that Australia is their continent and that the Pacific Islands do not belong to any continent. They are right in a way, because there is a geological continental crust plate which is called Australia. But we don't want to use the geological definition of a continent in that page. If so, there are 14 major continental plates and 40 minor ones and we would have to list them all. Zealandia (continent) is one of them.

On the other side, the rest of the world outside of Australia, including Pacific Islands people, are taught that their continent is called Oceania and not Australia. All the countries in the world have to be located in one continent, because continents are divisions of the land in 6 to 7 parts (webster's definition).

I said all of this in the talk page.

The changes I have made are coherent with the third opinion requested to Wikipedia for that question: put the 2 names Australia/Oceania. I added two definitions of what is a continent (from classic dictionaries) and illustrated the concept of continent as a division of the world with the French case. Those last things are not subject to controversy, only the name of the last continent. So you should let me edit everything except for the Australia/Oceania thing.

But I think that it is fair to let both names given there is a controversy and no consensus for australia.

Best Adrien16 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Breyer

Edit explanation: "accurate representation of what the cited source considered noteworthy)" - agreed.

That provides the actual flavor of his comments, which "Breyer stated that based on the values and the historical record, the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated and that history supports his and the other dissenters' views in District of Columbia v. Heller" does not. It also makes it clear that Breyer believes the judiciary should legislate.

Wimania (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Steven Crowder

I see you deleted the relevant info that Crowder DID release the unedited video within days of the complaint, and put back in the Prosecutor's later quote that included speculation rather than the original, official quote. I added back in that Crowder released the unedited video and based on that the Prosecutor would not bring charges, without any extra opinion or spin added. The editors who have spent months, literally, working on this page and are most invested are happy with the wording. It gives the facts without leaning pro or con either way. If you disagree, please use the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steven_Crowder and/or the noticeboard page that resulted in a consensus after a long, arduous process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVN#Including_union_affiliations_of_prosecutor_who_refused_to_charge_union_members_with_assault.2FSteven_Crowder ThanksJohnKAndersen (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

I deleted no such thing. I put back no such thing. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

According to Wiki's history:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Crowder&diff=550130176&oldid=549959933

Your edit does not contain that the unedited video was quickly released and reverted the Prosecutor's quote that contained his speculations about the alleged assaulter was acting in self defense. It is attributed to you, and you left notes:05:31, 12 April 2013‎ Fat&Happy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,188 bytes) (+58)‎ . . (→‎December 2012 union protest: restore more complete, accurately titled, ref) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKAndersen (talk • contribs)

Well, since Wikipedia insists we assume good faith on the part of other editors, I suppose I'm not allowed to accuse you of purposeful misrepresentation of facts and have to just assume that you are unable to read an edit difference correctly.

The diff to which you linked above is your change, tagged as "minor" and described as "formatting reference citation", even though it includes significant changes to content as well as the underlying refs. My edit (here), on the other hand, does exactly what the edit summary describes – "restore[s a] more complete, accurately titled, ref". Fat&Happy (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your pal

FH, I was just reading the sadly dreadful Carole Lombard p. and saw you had made an edit. Coincidence! So, just thought I'd check in and say hi. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Date listing on Rommel article

I got that a little goofed up. Thanks for fixing it. Sorry to make you fix it twice. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Just that the first was a revert of an anon IP who had changed it, and when you changed it back I was scratching my head wondering what I had missed, since you've done so much good work on the article. But I figured you just got temporarily confused by the series of changes... Fat&Happy (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sourced and relevant

Play-Doh‎; 00:47 . . (+1,081)‎ . . ‎Philkon (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Cultural impact: I added about a dozen references to the story told about Play-Doh in this movie, so 71.234.215.133 / Fat&Happy will stop deleting it as unsourced and irrelevant) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philkon (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been mentioned

Edits you have made have been mentioned by me at a request for comment on the Play-Doh article. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I have a fairly extensive, seldom-trimmed, watchlist... but thanks for the courtesy. As a primary participant in the dispute, I'll probably watch for other comments before chiming in there. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Charles, Prince of Wales and Diana

Hello. I'm just wondering why you reverted a correction I made to Prince Harry of Wales. Thanks. Inglok (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, when I re-read the sentence afterwards, I realized that I had misread it originally and the added comma might be appropriate, but since I wasn't 100% positive and the sentence was already complex and "over-comma"ed, I didn't change it back. If you want to make the change again, I won't object. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Though, I'm not sure any writing can be too correctly punctuated. Please read my talk page to see a discussion some users and I have had recently about appositive commas. Thanks again. Inglok (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Neil Diamond

Hello Fat&Happy, You may wish to look at this articles recent history. A editor from New Zealand, with a rather odd history, seems intent on making unreferenced changes, trivia and placing his name at the start of the article. If this carries on, I will take it to an admin and hope this meets with your approval? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

Oops, my bad! Thanks for the revert - that is what I thought I was doing, was back to non-capitalized, I had it backwards!! We're on the same page! That's why I tried to quote the guidelines, because I thought they had done it wrong and HAD included the capitals!! Thanks! ChristensenMJ (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I can totally relate. Especially since I tend to use the "Popups" add-in all the time to review changes, and more than once have made a similar mistake (sometimes catching myself in time; sometimes not...) And on this one, I checked the direction at least three times to be sure that's not what I was doing. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha - nice! Thanks for saving me and being a better "checker" than I was!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

America is not the USA

I am not happy with your reversing of my edit to Encyclopedia Britannica. Americans do not equate with citizens of the United States of America. Please develop your point to me. Thierry Le Provost (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please develop your understanding of common English-language usage. Reference to a dictionary might prove helpful. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2013

Thank you for the dictionary link. America is not the USA.

Thierry Le Provost (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

America is not the USA. But people from the USA are Americans. They are not United Statesians. People from Canada are Canadians. People from Mexico are Mexicans. People from the United States are Americans. Even in French. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 02:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Costliest battles

I counted 33 items in this table, and the lowest one has around 10% of the casualties of the highest. Is this list creep? Perhaps we should either a) Choose a semi-random number of items for the list (10? 20?) or b) choose a semi-random "total casualties" cutoff (10,000?). Tks. • Serviceable†Villain 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Definite list creep. As recently as October 2012, there were only ten battles in this table. with the smallest loss count being 18,000+; in late October and early November, one editor made significant changes and additions. I see no indication of the rationale used for the new cutoff. I'd support trimming a bit – if not back to ten, at least to the top 20 (8,630 cut) or >10,000 loses (17 battles). But it probably needs to be discussed for a while on the article talk page. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Those damned talk pages! Life was so much easier when we could just swoop in and do the right thing. ;-) I'll put something there (unless you already have, but i don't think you have) and wait and see if any eejits show up. Cheers. • Serviceable†Villain 08:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Gnome

Anytime I use {{cite news}} I feel like a child kicking over an ant hill. I get to watch everyone come out and fix stuff.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP names issues

Hello Fat and Happy, As you are much better versed in BLP, I was wondering if you could comment on my posting on the talk page of Daryl Katz. I was seeking to include the names of his children and parents but apparently it is in violation of WP:BLPNAME. I have edited a few biographies and it seems to me that names of parents and children are nearly always included if properly sourced. Anyhow, your opinion would be appreciated. ThanksPatapsco913 (talk)

Sorry for the delayed response; I tend to get tied up with the simple little things and procrastinate on those that require actual research and thought...

I think I've seen – but largely avoided participating in – discussions on BLPNAMES more contentious than Obama's religion or birth certificate, and the sides seem fairly evenly divided. So all you'll get is personal opinion, not any startling insights.

Personally, I agree with those who favor minimizing the information supplied about minor children, even if it has been published in People and The Hollywood Reporter. Unless the name is particularly notable, like Suri or Alef, I tend to redact it, and limit other information to the year of birth until the child becomes notable in her/his own right, like Ireland Baldwin.

Parents are a somewhat different story; their names and a brief background are almost de rigueur in competent biographies, but it's not necessary to include excessive detail. In the Daryl Katz article, I would probably:

• Omit the names of both the parents and the children from the infobox (filling the children= parameter with "1 son, 1 daughter";
• Leave the textual information about his parents as you had it in this edit. The information that pharmaceuticals is something of a "family tradition" seems relevant (though you might drop the double reference to "pharmacist").
• Change the opening of "Personal life" to something like:

  Katz is married to Renee Gouin, the daughter of businessman Jean Ivan Gouin and his wife Carol. They have two children, twins Harrison and Chloe . [possibly substitute "They have twin children, a son and a daughter."]

Don't know if this will be any help, but good luck. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. cheers Patapsco913 (talk)

gg talk p.

Oh my god fh, you were with me when I was trying to archive this old text. I was making the archive, no. 3, and made a mistake with the slash. I had cut the text to put in the archive and then cut the mistaken archive link so I couldn't get the original pasted back on. How on earth did you fix this? Thank you so much. I'm going to create archive 3 and get off all the stuff that's been there forever.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Shit! I made a mistake again. Wouldn't archive. I've archived my talk p. so I don't understand what mistake I made this time. Will you create an archive 3? I don't want to blow it a third time. Thank you.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Weirdly the last conversation moved from the bottom to the top of the talk p. This is the section that should be kept, I think, on the p. Thanks for saving me again.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Leave it a day or two and let's see if the changes I made get the archiving bot to do its job again. I think the problem was that like a lot of articles, it was set to keep the last three threads, no matter how old they were; since the page hasn't been too active recently, there were only three threads total, so they languished. I changed it to only require the last thread be kept if everything ages out.

BTW, I had meant to write you a little while ago, but I have my own talk page archiving set so fast, the message I wanted to talk about was long gone and I forgot. On the Carole Lombard page, I supplied a couple of sources you tagged as needed for her having a romance with Russ Columbo, but I left the citation-needed tag on the speculation they were actually engaged at the time of his death because I couldn't find any reliable backup for that, just some blogs and contemporary discussions about how they were seen as such an item that a lot of people expected them to get engaged. So we might want to remove or modify that assertion. But... the other thing I wanted to ask about was that when I was checking Lombard and Columbo, I found at least one seemingly reliable source (and unfortunately, I forget where it was) saying he had been in an earlier romance with Garbo. That's not mentioned on her page anywhere; do you have any information on this from her various bios? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

good to hear from you fh.Yes, I saw that you provided the cits on the CL p. What on earth were you doing on that p.? Seems we're destined to run in to each other. As for Russ Columbo (whoever he was) no, nothing about him in all my research. It's either a rumor or your source is inaccurate. So, finally, you think it's the archiving bot that's the problem. btw, what the hell does bot mean?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Lombard's been on my watchlist for a while, but it doesn't pop up that often. Can't recall what took me there in the first place, but I think it was something I saw elsewhere that I was looking for additional info on, and I probably tweaked some small bit of wording or formatting as I was reading it, so that added it to the watchlist. Thinking about it, I believe I was originally trying to find something about the histories of Western Airlines and TWA, and the article on TWA Flight 3 came up, and checking that started it.

I think bot originated as a shortened form of robot, sort of like blog is of web log. But I'm not sure. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As to "(whoever he was)", I had never heard of Russ Columbo either, but you should glance at his article; it's short, but sort of interesting. Seems like in his day he was a singer, compared with Bing Crosby, who was able to charm the ladies like Valentino and died tragically young in a ridiculous shooting accident at the hands of one of his best friends. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And, moving toward another neverending thread... after writing the above, I went back to review the Columbo article; I see it mentions Garbo as being one of a couple of "ruse romances" manufactured by his manager for publicity and to try to break him up from his real girlfriend at the time. But I'll see if I can locate anything else when I get a chance. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

RC sounds interesting. I can pretty much assure you that you'll find no credible source stating they had a liaison. Ruse romance. What a concept! GG talk page has most recent edits, everything else gone but no archive. But can't deal with it now since I'm about to leave for vacation for 10 days. Will check in on return. TAke care fh, --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The two older threads got moved to Archive 2 by the bot earlier today (about 2:00 AM UTC). Enjoy your vacation. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, fh, I will. Is a bot an actual person?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, its a little(?) program. But each of the bots that are allowed to run here has its own account/username, and information on who wrote/supports it to contact in case something goes wrong. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Blackfoot Confederacy/Notable Persons/Steve Reevis

Hi, You removed Steve Reevis from the list, noting lack of reference. I re-inserted him in the list with a reference to his films on IMDb. I had figured that since Steve Reevis link on wiki lists reference to both his Blackfoot heritage and his films, that an additional reference was not necessary. I hope it is now satisfactory for you. :o) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Time River (talk • contribs) 08:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. IMDb is generally not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia for much beyond basics about a movie's production information; certainly not for the user-submitted biographical information. Can you seriously believe that statements made by an anonymous poster under the name "Irishlass240" with an @aol email address meet Wikipedia verifiability requirements? And the article on Reevis himself doesn't even have any sources to establish his notability, let alone any facts about him. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Larry Silverstein may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hayden Panettiere may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner

Hi there, I left a message on Talk:Anthony_Weiner#Website_picture_mistake for your recent deletion. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you have left 7 edits over 3 hours since I've posted the above (more edits and hours since your revert). Feel free to respond to my query on the articles talk page consistent with WP:RV and WP:CIVIL, my guess here is that you did not intend vandalism so it is confusing why you are failing to "revert a good faith edit only after careful consideration. . . . Editors should provide an explanation when reverting . . . Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. . . A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony. . . do not revert any edits that can be verified per WP:V and would be an improvement to a page, within the boundaries of other Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. If an edit can be verified as encyclopedic, and improves a page but you still worry that someone else might disagree, then let the person who disagrees with the change revert the edit. Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Wikipedia be bold policy.". ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

WARNING has been placed on the Talk:Anthony_Weiner#Website_picture_mistake, please refrain from any further deletions, though reasonable and WP:RS edits are as always welcomed. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As an intermediate step I have posted this disagreement at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

JPMorgan Chase

You need to stop reverting my edits and engaging in an edit war. I have already reported you to a number of administrators, and they said that if you continue this behavior, they will block you!!!!!! 71.72.24.51 (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to read the current sources I supplied, one primary from Dimon's bio on the JPMC site and another secondary from Reuters, both of which confirm his position, which you keep deleting. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry!!!!!! My Bad!!!!!! Please be patient with me because I am new at this!!!!!!! 71.72.24.51 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jennifer Aniston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mr. & Mrs. Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anthony Weiner sexting scandal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

rv copyvio?

Your revert, in this article. What 'copyvio' did you revert exactly?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be the entire content of the reverted addition, which was pretty much identical word-for-word, with the cited source, page 55 of Hanioglu's biography, albeit with a large gap between portions. BTW, I notice that other content using the same citation don't seem to be supported there; in particular, the discussion of Ataturk's continued popularity in the Muslim World seems better supported around page 129 than page 55. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that giving proper attribution (which is what I did by adding a reference pointing to the right page) should avoid any similar concerns. At least, that's what I grasped by reading WP:Plagiarism. In any case, I tried to rephrase the incriminated sentence. For the second matter, you're correct, I cited the wrong page by mistake. This has been fixed, thanks for pointing it out!--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

GG errors

Arggggh. Very boring correcting multiple errors in an article.Hope you're well.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi.

I just discovered that you rolled back one of my contributions, here...Can you prouve, with another source, that Marlene Dietrich came american citizen in 1939 and not 1937 ? I see in the official site that it was in 1937.

Thank you. --Orikrin1998 (excuse my bad english, I'm french) 14:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the New York Times source cited at the changed sentence, you can look at the three more contemporaneous newspaper accounts from 1937–39 cited with the equivalent statement in the lead. The confusion may be caused by what seems to be a longer and more complex naturalization process that was in place at that time and a somewhat unclear distinction between "applied for", "approved", and the final oath of allegiance which completed the whole process. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so...Because some sources tell us that it was the march 6, 1937, or other references say march 6, 1939. It is only one of these solutions. --Orikrin1998 (excuse my bad english, I'm french) 18:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that strange a coincidence, actually. While U.S. civil servants are notoriously averse to working on Saturdays, this article does say she did some paperwork on Friday, March 5, 1937, and "is eligible to become a full-fledged citizen two years from now", which would seem to be corroborated by the date on her original application for naturalization. Then, the aforementioned two years later, this article says she completed the penultimate step on March 7, 1939, with final citizenship to take effect within 60 days. Unless she traveled from Los Angeles to New York by covered wagon or around Cape Horn, the end of the 60-day period would be "shortly before" she would have left LA to arrive in NYC on June 12, as mentioned in this article.

And, weapons of mass destruction aside, you'd think that these guys could at least get the year of an official U.S. government document correct. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explanations, i'll use 1939.

If you want my opinion, 14h is not enough for archiving.

Cordially, --Orikrin1998 (excuse my bad english, I'm french) 16:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Didgori

Hi Checked out Nomads in the Sedentary World on Amazon, Didgori is mentioned on pages 47/48 but there is no citation of 210K casualties.(I did a search in the book for Didgori) Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That pretty much parallels my process and results, which is why I tagged the number as failing verification (after removing the previously supplied citation to another Wikipedia article which itself didn't appear to have any citation for casualties), but I've been known to "read" an entire article and somehow miss the one sentence that was relevant to a cite. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me the guy made up his own numbers and posted them--Woogie10w (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Also if push comes to shove in a Wikipedia dispute I can access Nomads in the Sedentary World at the New York Public Library and make PDF copies of the relevant pages.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Aww. What happened to that famous Wikipedia assumption of universal good faith :) ?

Not unlikely. I'm pretty far outside my comfort zone with medieval Balkan battles; that article is only on my watchlist because I didn't get around to deleting it after correcting a sort anomaly when I was looking up some background during a discussion of battles of the American Civil War. So as far as I'm concerned, you can feel free to make any corrections you think are appropriate. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Southern Poverty Law Center may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• approach to assigning the label.<ref>[http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/03/hbc-90006753 {{"'Hate', Immigration, and the Southern Poverty Law Center"]. ''Harper's Magazine''.</ref><ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ronald Lauder may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• "Austrian rightist chief accused of anti-Semitism over cartoon"]. Reuters. August 23, 2012]</ref>
• the channel's news chief Reudor Benziman, its news editor Ruti Yuval, and its presenter Guy Zohar (who continues in another post in Channel 10, who criticized Ron Lauder for the pressure he exerted.<

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

gg question

Hi fh, I saw the two edits made by you and jonxwood but I can see no difference whatsoever in the previous/current versions of either. Can you explain this what you changed? This seems to happen regularly, if infrequently, and I've never understood. Thanks,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ha. Those were tiny (it originally took me a while to see jonxwood's at all). S/he added a missing space, changing "NewYork" to "New York". (And thanks for asking; it triggered a memory, and I just checked. The unspaced version is apparently the correct representation of the hospital's name, so the edit needs to be reverted.) I changed hyphens used as dashes in two places to proper dashes. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

GG error

I'm back! An error message has appeared at the end of the references section on the GG p. Any ideas?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see what the problem is. An editor did not supply full citation on Crafton in the first reference to him/her end of silent section. Just has to be rewritten without the information.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, I checked my records back to last July and the Crafton cit. is there. So why the sudden error message? Ideas?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Tried to fix by adding Crafton to bib and using sfn. Didn't work. To hell with it. Someone else can fix it. Would that someone be...you? :))--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

GG??

Fine work, FH. I read your edits twice and can't figure out what you did though. And of course don't waste your time trying to explain it to me. Not sure we need the cit. after "Despite her popularity as a silent star...." since this is made clear throughout the section. Also, Photoplay based it's conclusion on amount of fan mail received by stars--not exactly an empirical study. Curious. Why did you cut out our discussion on your talk p.? Don't have to answer that if you don't want to. Don't have to do anything you don't want to!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

based "its" conclusion. I see one thing you did was change title and add refharv.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't too sure we needed the cite you mention, but its removal was the immediate cause of the warning messages, so since curing the error was the primary goal, I just restored it. Then I started playing around with sfns, since you had added the book to the bibliography already and we didn't need its details repeated three times, but I just left all the old references in place, changing only the format. Now that single one could be dropped without having the error messages return if you like.

I just have this page on a relatively speedy archive schedule, something I originally set a few months ago when I took an editing hiatus of unspecified duration. I recently discovered a method of keeping specific threads from being archived for a while, which I used on two threads above which looked like they might continue cordially for a while with intervening pauses, but don't bother with it much yet. If we get another extended discussion going like some of our earlier ones, I'll definitely need to tag it for keeping. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the ref=harv allows proper use of the sfn template; as listed on Amazon, it looks like the last part is the name of a series of which the book is part, not actually part of the book title, so I used the template's separate series= parameter, the main effect of which seems to be a lack of italics on that portion. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hitler

Please see the description at File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1974-082-44, Adolf Hitler im Ersten Weltkrieg.jpg. --John (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I did. It lists Hitler as the last of the seated people, before identifying the (7th) "lying down" person as Balthasar Brandmayer. The "stehend:" and " sitzend:" identifiers are both used before the names of the people they refer to; there is no reason to assume the pattern was changed for the "liegend:" identifier, especially since the word is followed by a colon and a name. Additionally, mustache aside, the eyes and facial structure of the person seated on the right seem to resemble Hitler more than those of the person lying in front. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right, I apologise. --John (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, believe me, I see exactly what caused the misunderstanding. The caption is not particularly clear, and I ended up rereading it several times, in both languages, before deciding to whom "lying" referred. I'm glad we're not trying to accurately identify the two men between Georg Wimmer and Hitler; judicious use of a few full stops and semi-colons would have been a big improvement. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

citation needed?

Hello bro, how long should a citation needed note be left on the page before the uncited claims can be deleted?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Beats me; and I'm a bad person to ask. For newly added content, I often avoid the issue by taking a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. For older content, if the content appears particularly egregious, the same; otherwise, probably a coupe of months or more, and if it seems reasonable and useful I'll probably try to find a source myself first. Is that a rhetorical question, or do you have a specific example in mind? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

p.s. Curious. Approx how many articles are you significantly involved with at any time? What draws you to a particular subject? You seem to be all over the map.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Significantly involved", very few – I'd say no more than 10 at any given time, and depending on the definition of "significant", many people would justifiably argue zero. But there are currently 2,055 on my watch list, of which 702 have had some sort of activity in the past week. (Seems like time to do another cull.) Generally, they're the result of some sort of link chain I followed at one time, which is why they may seem a bit eclectic. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops on me

Doh!!JOJ ^Hutton

17:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Otto Frank

Your removal of Otto Frank from the category of "Holocaust survivors" and "Nazi concentration camp survivors" was illogical and unnecessary. Mr. Frank rightfully belongs in both categories, regardless of - as you put it - redundancy. Engines On (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:Categorization, particularly WP:SUPERCAT. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Primo Levi (and others as well) is listed in both categories of "Holocaust survivors" and "Auschwitz concentration camp survivors," so why just focus on Otto Frank? Anyway, the category of "Holocaust survivors" is a vital category, and should not be relegated to a sub-category status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engines On (talk • contribs) 23:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for what everyone has done wrong on every other article in Wikipedia; I just try to correct errors and guideline non-compliance when I see them. Since categories are supposed to be defining characteristics of the article subject, I would think all categories are considered important, not just the ones you happen to take a special interest in. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's unfair to Otto Frank to have others, such as Primo Levi, accorded both categories. If you leave Primo Levi's "Holocaust survivors" category intact, while removing Otto Frank's, how is that justifiable? I strongly believe that both men should have both categories, but if you insist on removing Frank's, then you should remove Levi's. Engines On (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Have some cake

Thanks for your help with Gandhi House - I am doing a few in Joburg so do feel free to tidy, add or correct. Any idea where we might find a picture? Victuallers (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm, breakfast! Thanks for the baklava.

My closest connection to Joburg is having been a business friend of a guy from there back in the '90s; I just stumbled across the article because I saw you add it to the Gandhi template and was curious as to what it was. So I have no idea where to get a good pic. But I'll keep an eye out if something comes up. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Lundeen cartoon

Seems to me this cartoon is revelatory of the Big Lie always used against any third-party effort in the U.S.: that it somehow undermines our democratic republic and is thus giving aid and comfort to totalitarians. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but I disagree. One of the shortcomings of editorial cartoons is that for readers of a time significantly after they were created, rhe picture ceases to be worth a thousand words, and may in fact require 1,000 words to explain their message. If the idea underlying the cartoon is expressed in text in the main article, the cartoon itself, especially in raw form with no additional explanation at the linked site, adds nothing to the understanding of the article's subject.

Additionally, the cartoon in question was one of over 20 external links to the same site added over a short period of time by a single user (see thread below). This seems to fall squarely under the "linkspam" caution that "although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." Certainly the link would be appropriate in an article about Bill Sykes (does such an article exist? I couldn't locate it under the nickname or actual name, Charles H.), but I don't see them as being pertinent to all the historical figures or events which may have been the subject of one or more of his cartoons. Universities establish collections of the works of many famous people. If they are famous commentators, does that mean we should have an external link to the university collection in each article about a notable person or event on which they have commented?

Since you are an admin, and I haven't been in a multi-article content dispute before, perhaps you can provide a suggested next step. Is there a spam noticeboard or an external links noticeboard, similar to WP:RSN, at which the subject should be discussed? It seems like a horrible waste of time for all involved to have separate keep/delete consensus discussions at each affected page. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the three of us take it to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for comments. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I guess I was so concentrated on identifying an issue-specific noticeboard, I completely forgot about the main, more generic one. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

sounds good here, I'm heading out of town for a week soon, so if I need to be an active participant this will need to wait till June 23 or so — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jghapher (talk • contribs) 00:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

ok, I've tossed this to the dispute resolution page Jghapher (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

we've got an initial response that these were indeed linkspam (regardless of my intention), but that it doesn't rule out finding merit in them afterwards. Not sure where that leaves us specifically on the Lundeen question.Jghapher (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sykes Editorial Cartoons Linkspam?

Hi, my contributions of specific editorial cartoons to external links were not in the spirit of linkspam as I understand it. These links went to primary sources from a university collection that are illustrative of the entries and the cultural context. I made these edits in the spirit of improving the entries, and feel that they stand up in quality to many of the other external links. I was thinking that anyone interested in the subject matter would welcome the ability to link to an editorial cartoon from that time period about the subject. Not only does it reflect a point of view but also demonstrates through primary source documentation the public notoriety and impact. In addition to the value that editorials have, the cartoons also contain additional visual information useful for understanding the time period. I did add quite a few yesterday afternoon and apologize if they caught you by surprise or if my contributions were ill-conceived. If I'm reading the timestamps correctly (a big if), it appears you removed these as linkspam in about 16 seconds. Did you have time to follow any of the links to look at the source material? Jghapher (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

See comments in related thread immediately above. (And I can only wish I could do anything that fast; it was actually a 16–18 minute period.) Fat&Happy (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

ok, what would you suggest? I'm pretty new to this. Should I submit candidates on the talk pages in the future? Glad to hear you looked at each one of these and found all of them without merit instead of an 18 second blast! In many cases the site does present additional context and information about the cartoon. In principle I disagree with the assertion that it is a shortcoming of period political cartoons that they often need historical interpretation. The same thing could be said for many primary sources, but I feel it is important to provide access to this material. Jghapher (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure; I'm hoping User:Orangemike responds to the last paragraph of my reply to him. And to clarify, I didn't review all the links, only several. (And in fairness, I guess, your additions may have started out at a bit of a disadvantage in that the first one I looked at was the one of Fulgencio Batista swatting the revolutionary mosquito, which, while interesting in hindsight, seemed particularly lacking in providing useful insight about the subject.) Fat&Happy (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool and thanks, I thought the Fulgencio Batista cartoon was especially interesting in the context of the publication date of 1941 and potential insight through this popular depiction of him and the revolutionaries. I may be answering my own question here and such conversation should take place on the Batista talk page.Jghapher (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013-Round 3

Please do not introduce talk page (much less mainspace) sections with the same name, as it is an inconvenience for linking to sections. I suppose someone from redneck/hillbilly country and boasting of it on their user page naturally won't be bright enough not to err the same blunder twice. GotR ^Talk 15:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So not only do you completely disregard standard punctuation rules and the en:Wikipedia Manual of Style, but you're also an ignorant bigot (you should pardon the redundancy). I guess what they say is really true: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

All hogwash. Usage of AWB, which automatically implements MOS, constitutes disregarding MOS? And nope, I was merely re-stating what you boasted of on your own user page. GotR ^Talk 20:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For your award winning work on the Greta Garbo page. Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

'DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT.'DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT.'DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT.'DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slim&Angry (talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 June 2013‎ (UTC)

The usual classicfilmbuff subject

Hi FH, question about the filmography. My problem is that the intro just repeats stuff in the GG p. It's not drawing many readers so I raise the same question. Should it comprise a separate p.? Even though I spent several hours correcting all the mistakes this editor made (which I'm still still doing on the main p.) I'd like your thoughts on whether it should just be moved back. As for protocol, should it stay since an editor made the not insignificant change? Should I raise it on the talk p.? Problem there is that no one contributes. incidentally, I received a message from a user named Betty Logan in which she said this editor had been blocked twice for the extent of his/her false assertions on other pp. Should we revert to a previous version, she asked, even though many changes had been made since that several day period in early June? I told her I had corrected most inaccuracies and that the sections s/he messed up are now legit.) When I saw all the mistakes, i probably should have just reverted myself, though s/he did contribute some interesting tid-bits. Blah blah blah. Thanks for your patience in reading the endless messages I write.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I was originally wondering myself why you didn't just zap all the changes by that particular IP (that's the one that "cited" page 1 of the Paris book for everything, right?).

I agree the filmography should be reintegrated into the main article. but the problem is, just moving the content doesn't delete the useless extra article; you need an admin to do that. I don't know if the creator of that page, BeautyMan1997 (talk · contribs), is also a sockpuppet; I've never tried to find out how to determine that, though I see lots of people describing other editors as such. Maybe Betty Logan could help out on that. But if he's a legit editor, it might be best to start a merge discussion (if you want to do this, I can set up the necessary tags on both articles for you). If the editor IS a definite sock, you might be able to just copy over the content and request a "Speedy deletion" of the GGF article as being a duplicate, but the merge discussion might still be needed; not sure. Note that we're getting into administrative stuff here, not technical, and that's always been my weak point. (I can point you to a whole string of former managers (one of whom, e.g., just gave up and made up my weekly status reports for me), who would be glad to confirm that.) Fat&Happy (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I definitely think beautyMan a sockpuppet (who the hell came up with THAT designation) since he made up a bunch of stuff, youu know, error written, false cits and the like. I thought at the time that it was probably the same editor as the ip guy since the prose styles were very similar and many of the same mistakes were there. I don't think it matters anymore if he's a sockpuppet since I corrected all the errors, right? I'll contact B L first in any case and see what she suggests before we do a merge discussion, whatever that is. What is it? And what if no one weighs in? Then what do we do? BTW, one of my grandmothers came from an old South Carolina family. Charleston people for generations.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at the section List of notable Jamaican-Americans of the article Jamaican American, and then the separate article List of Jamaican Americans. The banners at the top of each notify editors about a proposal to merge (different type than we're talking about, but same principle), and point to a section on one of the talk pages to discuss. I think the way it works is that after a time an admin reviews the comments for and against, then closes the discussion and, if it carried, performs the merge. But that's administrative again, so don't trust my explanation.

Sounds like you glanced at all the pretty flags on my user page. If they're French, we're probably related in some distant degree. Like seriously, looking at family trees of the old Charleston families shows the same names recurring like it was the ancient Pharaohs. Although technically, we were "suburbanites", on what is now probably the bed of Lake Marion. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just wrote Betty Logan to get her input. Looked at the two pages on Jamaican Americans. Saw the flag indicating the discussion which was posted in Nov. 2012. Virtually no discussion and no change since that date, which is my worry. I'll wait to see B.L.'s response and we can reconvene at that point. If you're interested, read her response on her talk p. Don't know why her name's in red since she's very active.

Nope, the last name is Randolph, also a big VA name. 3 out of my four grandparents were Southern going back to the beginning: S. Carolina, Virginia, Georgia.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems like for some reason she requested that her user page be deleted, though if you enter User:Betty Logan in the search box, you'll see a whole slew of sub-pages for things she's been working on. Don't know how accurate/current that "semi-retired" message on her talk page is.

Yeah, I always associate Randolph with Virginia. My aunt was from Virginia somewhere; always carrying on as if she was FFV, but I don't find her maiden name in the list here; but I recall one time she was on a tear about Southern Cavaliers and used Randolph Scott as a modern-day exemplar. Don't know if he was actually from either the Scotts or the Randolphs, but the memory stuck. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, opened up wp to find a little red box near my username at the top of the p. Clicked on it and ended up at a B L p. with "a whole slew of sub-pages for things she's been working on." Nothing related to my message to her. Incomprehensible stuff. So I suggest setting up the merge discussion you discussed. Whaddya say? Then, if there's no discussion, which I predict, we can figure out how to get an admin to put the filmography back.

Oh yes, I'm almost certain my Randolph family was a FFV. My father had the all the geneological papers going way back. Other side of my father's parents also from VA but if I give you the name you'll have mine! Anyway, that side was ruined by the war. Lost everything. My grandfather started with nothing. Don't know about the Randolphs. Seemed to be real aristocrats, you know, slave-owning. Don't know anything about the Georgia family. Anyway, I'm second generation northerner.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Newsflash! She did leave a message on my talk p, as follows: "Thanks for bringing this up, it looks that way. I will add it to the sock puppet investigation. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC) If you disagree with a split you certainly don't need to start a merge discussion to put the article back to how it was. The WP:BRD cycle allows you to revert a bold edit you disagree with. Betty Logan (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)"

Does this make sense to you? If so, let's go for it.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No, no, it's on her p. with the endless subjects she's working on. At the bottom, in the G section

Yeah, let's go ahead. Did you make any substantive corrections to the filmography itself on the separate page, or can we just (to be safe) restore what was last on the main page (on May 30) before it was deleted? The latter would be my preference in general. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Good, very good. No changes to the contents of filmography but he did divide it into silent and sound features, which is good. So I'd say go with what's there. So you know what you're doing? I sure as hell don't.can I do anything to help?

Can't remember if you live in the south now but as an old-time Southerner you'll understand me when I tell you that the heat and humidity have arrived ( I live in NC)!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Bravo, F&H. Your knowledge of WP technology is extraordinary. Always oohs and ahhs to see your work. Everything's in good shape now. but I lament the wasted hours I spent correcting the Beautyman's additions. One of the stupidist things I've ever done. Look forward to working with you again.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. (And for the strawberries...) In case you didn't notice the edit note on the separate article, I left all the content intact, just in case somebody successfully disputes the recombination, but masked it with the redirect back to the section of the main article. After a week or so, I'll try to figure out the most straightforward way of getting the separate article/redirect deleted. (I suppose leaving it up as a redirect wouldn't be all that harmful, but its presence might tempt people to repopulate it by stripping the main article again.)

Oh, and no, my family moved west, then north, after the war (I notice that like most Southerners you used the undisambiguated term above; everybody from the South knows what war), though I did grow up in the South myself – before air conditioners were ubiquitous; I remember spending lots of time browsing the comics area of the local drug store because it was air-conditioned – so I know all about the heat and humidity. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

but the separate article is gone so I guess I'm unsure of what you mean by "edit note on the separate article." So also don't know what you mean by leaving all the "contact in tact"? No, we definitely don't want anybody to repopulate. Next, what do you mean by disambiguate "term above" I didn't designate which war, if that's what you meant, but I'm probably misunderstanding you. Look forward to your response to these questions--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is a bit tricky...

The filmography article isn't really "gone"; I just (for now) changed it to redirect to a section of the main Garbo article.

1. If you click on → Greta Garbo filmography, you'll be taken to the Greta Garbo page.
2. If you go to the top of that article, there will be a message like "(Redirected from Greta Garbo filmography)".
3. If you click on "Greta Garbo filmography" in that message, you'll be taken to the "real" page, which shows only "Redirect page" and an arrow pointing to "Greta Garbo#Filmography".
4. If you then edit that page, you will see that right under the #REDIRECT instruction is a comment message, followed by everything that had been showing in the separate article.

So the only thing needed to reactivate the separate article would be to delete the top two or three lines at that point.

Yeah, you're right, I meant "the war". I just find it amusing, even though I do it myself, that 150 years and 5+ wars later, anywhere south of Pennsylvania "the war" (or, especially, "the War") is pretty generally understood to have one meaning. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

well, unfortunately, that little link on the top of the G p. that says something like "redirected from gg filmography" only appeared once and of course then I goofed and I was gone with the wind, where the answer my friend is not blowing. Thanks for spending all the time writing it up because I'll keep trying. Some kind of bug I guess. I support your decision to delete the redirect.

I just saw an excellent film with Jude Law, Renee Zellwiger (sp?), and N Kidman about a Southern deserter. Excellent and very powerful, I think, although Nicole pretty boring, as usual. Will be back in touch when I get the link again. You can archive this p. if you want cuz I copied your directions in a word document and it's turning into one of our endless existential pursuits.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Cold Mountain, I assume? I see that pop up periodically, and always think about watching, but then always decide I'd be bored, in spite of the fact that I [keep trying to convince myself that I] like Kidman. I remember that when the novel first came out, a woman I worked with was raving about how good it was. (She and her husband were consultants who lived in Virginia, where she was from – Charlottesville area, if I recall correctly.) So you recommend overall, next time it's on? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

FDR Marriage and affairs Handsome Issue

Thank you for addressing the issue I had with the use of "handsome" in it's current context. You are heading in the right direction but not quite there.

Let me give you an example. Let's say there was an article that said that Arnold Schwarzenegger was described as muscular when he became Mr. Olympia. Now if I showed a picture to anybody I met, regardless of where they came from, they would have to honestly say Arnold was Muscular at that time. If I could travel in time, an honest answer from anybody would be the same, he is muscular at the time of Mr. Olympia.

Handsome is much more subjective. If I took a photo of FDR at the time of his marriage around the world, would I get the same results? Would Asians or Africans universally agree that FDR crossed the threshold of handsome? Would people past and present agree as well? The point is handsome is a very debatable term.

Who says FDR is handsome? The author of FDR's biography says so. That's all we know. There is no context. Because the term handsome is subjective, unlike social and charismatic, it should not stand on it's own.

If we knew what context Mr. Burns (the biographer who is cited) decided that FDR was handsome, then it could be worked in. For example, perhaps leading periodicals of the time described FDR as handsome.

Burns, to the best of my knowledge, is not a noted expert in what makes a man handsome. Saying FDR is handsome because Burns is cited does not make FDR, in fact, handsome.

To make the sentence factual requires either stating how Burns arrived at his characterization or striking the use of the word handsome. If you have that reference, that would be fantastic, but I suspect it's not in many households these days.

Jtgelt (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)jtgelt

George W. Bush

Why remove the dot? it is the end of the sentence. Jiawhein (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

No. It's not. Read it again. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Got see the "and" is small a. So, sorry for any inconvenience caused. Jiawhein (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Eh, no big deal. I wonder how many people here can say they've never misread something. I certainly can't. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Oversight

Hi FH, 1) as I ustand, there's more oversight of WP articles than in the past. Is this true? If so, what are the instruments used? 2) I read the statements on you talk p. by slim&angry. did you make a complaint? If so, how? or was it a bot that picked up this person's harassment and then blocked his/her talk p.?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL – Hi, there. 1a) Possibly; at times it seems like it, but 1b) I have no idea. 2) I almost missed them. No, when I logged on for the first time this morning, I saw that the comment had been added, modified, and deleted within less than five minutesfour minutes flat, while I was making coffee. Actually, though, that doesn't mean anything new is happening; I've had admins and other friendly users delete vandalism/insults in the past. Don't have any idea what triggered this time – either the suggestion or its quick deletion. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

quick little thing

I was checking through your archives to check out our GG stuff for fun. God! What we wrote could easily comprise a book. So many different issues and levels of our epic conversation. (No comment on why I decided to devote precious time pursuing this line of inquiry, and why I'm continuing now. Could it be...procrastination? Nahh. Scholarly intrigue.) I started drifting in the fifth archive I think. But, we could publish it in academic press for scholars to read as an example of a long wiki collaboration and virtual friendship, both literary and oral communication (we "talked"). Good possibilities here for primary research for a dissertation. Kidding of course but academics do write about the most bizarre things. How many subspecies of one species of worms in the world. their mating habits. (do they mate?) Our work would be more interesting than THAT, I would think. You even talked occasionally about being in a bad mood which would add narrative electricity.

Still no sign of the link to separate filography section. Did you remove the article?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW. If you still haven't seen any G films, you should check out A Woman Of Affairs, a silent. One of her "greatest" performances. Wed. 7/10, 9:45 am, TCM.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by "still no sign of the link to separate filmography section", but no, I haven't changed anything since we last talked about it.

It's funny, for some reason I seem to think I saw part of one of her movies on TV a few months ago, but I can't remember either what it was or why I didn't see the whole thing (though the most likely answer would be tuning in late and having trouble picking up the plot line). Or maybe I'm confused about just meaning to watch something? The "problem" is that I don't have Hulu or Netflix (9-year-old+ TV with no HDMI inputs needed for most converters), and I don't bother renting DVDs, so I'm pretty much limited to TCM, and I tend to only channel-surf their listings on the weekend, so chances of catching a GG flick are minimal... Fat&Happy (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I appear to have been blocked from editing articles yet there's no information about this on either my talk or user p. I can't imagine why I would be blocked. I realize I'm not blocked from writing you. Any ideas?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Strange. Just learned that if I click on "edit source," which comes up upon clicking "edit," I can edit. Any ideas?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any good idea what could be happening. My best guess, based on the timing, would be that it has something to do with the so-called "Visual Editor", which there have been a couple of info messages about recently (at the top of the watchlist page) that I glanced at but didn't pa much attention to. The one thing I remember is a comment in a Q&A on it somewhere that "standard" old-fashioned editing would still be available, and I think there was something about an "edit source" button to enable that. There may be more information on the Help pages or if you search for Visual Editor. For some reason, though, everything seems to be working the same for me (as far as I can tell; I've been tied up with some personal things all day, and this is the first time I've logged in and done anything on the Internet). But that might be related to my not using the default interface – I have my preferences set to the "Modern" one. I wonder, because when I first read the message that they were rolling out this new thing, there was an option to enable it immediately on a test basis, but when I selected that option, nothing changed. I didn't care, so I just unchecked it again and moved on. If that is the issue, and you don't like it, there is a checkbox labeled "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" in the "Editing" section of the "Gadgets" tab page of the "Preferences" that can be selected someplace near the top of a screen. (Let me know if you find out anything more.) Fat&Happy (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right. If you go to your watchlist, directly under options and messages you'll find

"VisualEditor is now available for all logged-in users. Learn more, help out and give feedback. [dismiss]"

It explains the hot new feature. I don't ustand any of it but will spend some time and try to figure out. If I can't, I'll be back--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC).

I just read what I wrote you and previous sentences were not revealed under the blue box but i created new para and they're here now--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so basically it's just a new editor. You can also use the trad'l editor if you click on Edit Source. Now challenge is to figure out how it operates. Should be interesting--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If it shows up for me, I may give it a couple of tries; in theory, it should work a lot like editing a document in MS-Word, but I can't say anything useful 'cause I haven't seen it yet. I guess for one thing it only comes up in articles, not talk pages. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Any time you leave a blank space at the beginning of a line, it forces the whole paragraph into one of those boxes as one large, unformatted line. I just changed it to extra indent marks. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

They say they hope the change will encourage more users to contribute. I would thing that's the last thing we want--more non/experts adding useless or inaccurate information and thus slowing down the narrative or forcing more corrections. I would think we would want to make it harder for uncommitted users to edit. Lack of oversight is, of course, the single most important problem with WP. I'll be back if I fail to figure out how to use Visual Ed.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Mixed feelings about that. I can't really qualify as an expert on anything. But on the other hand, I can actually write semi-grammatical, mostly comprehensible English, and I recognize the difference between the New York Times and Perez Hilton, which are very minor skills but ones not found in many of the editors I've run into. Which means I feel guilty throwing stones, but yes, I agree with you. Thinking back to when you started, though, wouldn't it have helped you be more productive if you could have just concentrated on content without having to worry about how to make a link or italicize a title? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of events named massacres may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ruth Westheimer

Your recent editing history at Ruth Westheimer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --IIIraute (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to California may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Era of Good Feelings

Dear Fat&Happy - You've edited a number of the articles I've posted, and my thanks. Can you take a look at Era of Good Feelings INFOBOX and fix the script that's showing up on the page - it's a mess. I honestly can't seem to figure out what's wrong with my methods.

36hourblock (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that was nice – a half-finished template with zero documentation. Gee, thanks...

Anyway, I tried to make a few tweaks here and there. Any further fixes to the infobox would seem to need changes to the template itself, since quite a bit is hard-coded there, not parameter-driven. You originally had two different captions specified; I chose one of them but left the other one there, commented out, so you can switch back if you want. The only other significant change (besides switching to straight quotes from curly ("smart") quotes, per MoS), was one italicization in an area that always throws me, the so-called term being referred to as a term. Feel free to switch back if you think it was wrong. (For now I only looked at the lead, since that's where the infobox is and I assume the rest is a work in progress.) Fat&Happy (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Kushner

Hello, I've been following your edits and I notice you're experienced and have a solid comprehension of Wikipedia's policy of parent and child categories. User:Edenc1 keeps reverting the edit I made on the article Joshua Kushner since he insists that the child category of "Category:American Jews" AND parent category "Category:American people of Belarusian-Jewish descent" belong in the same article. I like you to tutor him on Wikipedia's policy and concepts of parent and child categorization. Thank You. Backendgaming (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Following my edits, you may have also noticed that I haven't been terribly successful in tutoring or otherwise persuading people that yes, the guidelines do apply, even to a category as indispensable as their pet favorite. I did glance at the Kushner article, though, and made a few minor fixes, so it's at least been added to my watchlist. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see my comments at User talk:Backendgaming#Joshua Kushner. Edenc1 • Talk 00:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

why did you delete my contribute?

Hello! I'm User02062000. Yesterday in the article 'List of sovereign states by date of formation' I have deleted Taiwan section because it is not de jure recognised. OK, you said that Taiwan is listed as a sovereign state by Wikipedia. Yes, it is. However, it is not recognised by international community. OK, you are right: it is listed, on the de facto basis. But there are 11 such states (see List of sovereign states), and, on your criteria, it must be listed too! And the State of Palestine is de jure recognised and listed as sovereign! We must create sections for these states! Because your point of view is not correct! You include Taiwan, with de facto independence and recognition from 23 states, but you do not include Kosovo, with de facto independence too but recognition from more than 100 states! Both Kosovo and Taiwan are listed (on de facto basis, of course) and must be included! User02062000 (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So add them. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. Bye! User02062000 (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Dylan

Hey my friend, was just visiting the Dylan p. and there you were. You're everywhere! See you see soon,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean Bob, not Thomas... Just a few tweaks there; I like him, but can't hope to compete with Mick Gold there in improving the article. What caused you to wander by pop-folk music from classic films? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I know it seems crazy, but I do have other interests. Check out my talk p. where an interesting conversation has begun about my de-linking red links. Let me know your thoughts. Good god. The user went back to 2011 and reverted all my edits! Also just visited the Dietrich p. where I see you've been hanging around doing your usual helpful things. On my way now to Ava Gardener about whom a bio has just been written.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I saw that. I can see both sides of the issue. Basically, I agree with Ssilvers that at least some, probably many, of the redlinks should have been delinked. But I can understand why Graham made the reversions s/he did. I've done similar things myself (including earlier today); when you see a bunch of edits that you believe are clearly wrong in a series of articles by the same editor, and you decide (correctly or not) that the editor doesn't know WTF they're doing, it's a lot easier to "correct" the problem by reverting everything to status quo ante instead of carefully analyzing each edit to see if it may be partially OK. At least, from the changes I saw, it looks like all they did was restore the links without reverting any of the rest of your work.

Graham87 tried, in response to my question, to explain how to find all my edits with "faulty" and also my general "editing patterns." I can't ustand him. Would you try? I'd like to do some of this.

I think s/he's over-complicating. Go with Ssilvers' approach – just click on the "Contributions" link at the top of any page to show all the edits you have ever made, than use your browser's "Find" function (all browsers have one, with small differences in how to use) to locate occurrences of "faulty" one-by-one to check. (Helpful hint: "unlikely redlink", indicating you don't believe the subject is likely or appropriate to have an article created about them, might be a better edit summary than "faulty link".) Fat&Happy (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Got it but not going to bother. I've got better things to do that deal with that.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I ran into a similar situation a year or so ago on the German Anna Christie (which I just now revisited and tweaked a bit). Originally, there were a few redlinks, and Hans Junkermann was linked to the wrong person here, with no English article for the right person, the actor. I decided to link to the actor's German Wikipedia article instead of creating a redlink (which would have probably just prompted someone to restore the incorrect link), but left the other redlinks. Just now, though, I reviewed the German and English articles. Someone has created an English article for Junkermann and linked it correctly two out of three times, so I fixed one. Theo Shall has an article on the German Wikipedia with a filmography of around 40 films, 15 of which are linked to their own articles there. So he seems a likely prospect for someone to create an article about here. Finn Ulback, on the other hand, is not mentioned in the German article on the film and has no German article of his own. Given that AC was made over 80 years ago, it seems his notability might be questionable, so I delinked him in our article.

You're a nut-case! Imagine spending all that time on Hans Junkermann! Not exactly Brad Pitt. (I see that that Junkermann's had no more than 8-10 visitors over the last 30 days:))

Not contesting your opening characterization, but believe me, it probably took longer to write the above summary than to do the actual edits. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL!!!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

But the whole issue is pretty much a judgment call. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

My God, the Gardener p. is just awful. Absolutely terrible. 13 citations! And huge number of readers. I'm glad I'm not that interested in her otherwise the article would dominate my life for the next 2 years.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever checked her page, though I should have since the relationship with Sinatra seems interesting. Funny, when I first read your post above, I thought you were saying her Wikipedia article had just been created, and was in shock. It only took me a couple of seconds to realize what you meant though. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Good afternoon. Comments above.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Responses above inline. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Always a pleasure. Will probably see you soon in my WP wanderings and will likely have technical questions. Am most satisfied with my WP attempt at rehabilitating the reputation of de Acosta who has generally been portrayed as a "perverse psychopath" (her biographer). My account, pieced together with all the G biographers along with the recent MdA biography, will, I hope, contribute to gay and lesbian history. After the DOMA ruling, this history will surely increase its still slim evidentiary status.

My next goal is to write the GG biographers and point out their errors along with their anti-MdA bias. This includes even Schanke who's mediocre biography of MdA doesn't acknowledge that only 87 of G's amazing 181 cards, letters, and telegrams over 30 years were permitted to be seen by the public. And so his skewed analyses are based on incomplete evidence. Incredibly sloppy research. If I found this information (in the NYT) her biographer certainly should done more rigorous sleuthing. This seemingly small bit of information changes the ways we think about their relationship. Astonishing that none of the critics and journalists (at least those I've read) who've written about the content of these letters bothered to find out how many letters there were (cited in 2 definitive G biographers who demoted the information into footnotes!) All drew conclusions based on incomplete evidence. You see, I'm a scholar who's never going to get promoted because of my fixation on these two fascinating figures in international culture. Blah blah blah.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A couple of short responses to your most recent comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Hi, can't find your short responses. Could you check Graham's money values change in the "Golden Age icon section"? I'm getting a much higher 2013 value of her 1932 $275,000.00 salary than s/he she does but am bad at math.

btw, I see I'm under surveillance by this fellow! Why do you suppose--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)???

Actually, I get a slightly lower number ($3.5–4.2 million), using 1930 as a base (the article doesn't specify a particular year); the 2013 equivalent would increase to its highest point ($4.5–5.2 million) if 1933 were used, presumably the depth of the depression for cost-of-living, and comes to $4.3–5.1 million using 1932. The previous version said 10 times as much, which would be even lower. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't follow your calculations but as long as you think 4 times $275,000 in today's currency seems to be approximately correct, well there you have it. Seems to me that after after 81 years (article states 1932), currency value would be much higher than that. 4X isn't much. Isn't this like saying a dollar in 1932 is equal to 4 dollars in 2013, which of course would be wrong. Look forward to your respons.Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

4 × 275,000 = 1,100,000.

16 × 275,000 = 4,400,000.

The article says she signed a new contract in 1932; it doesn't specifically state the years in which she was making $250,000 to $300,000 per film, but the placement between the discussion of her 1930–1931 films and the new 1932 contract would seem to imply 1930, 1931, or both.

Cheers. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers back. Gotcha. But. Can you explain the meaning of your most recent calculations? What do they say about how much her average salary would translate to today's currency? Four times what it was then? I.e. just over a million dollars which, as I say seems wrong. The editor who wrote 10 times seems closer to me. But as I say, my brain doesn't understand much mathematics. Or just say whether or not the current calculation by Graham correct and if not, what it should be. When you write, think about me as an average middle school kid. :)--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep saying "4 times"; four times her 1930s earnings would be, as noted above, about $1–1.5 million. Graham87 changed the amount to "about four to five million dollars", which, as also noted above, is closer to the "16 times" area, compared to the original "10 times" (which could have been true at one time, depending on when the source for that was researched). Fat&Happy (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

OK buddy, we're just on different wavelengths. So last question. In the article, now stands at 4-5 times.... Is that correct or does it need to be changed? That's all I want to know.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

All right, now I understand what the problem is. Check the article again. It doesn't say "4–5 times", it says "four to five million dollars". Fat&Happy (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I'll be goddamned. You're RIGHT. I'm so sorry I wasted your time. I have another technical question about a reference problem I'm having with the Queen Christina article but I'll give you a break from me for a while! Greetings, Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

MoS

Thank you for the link to the MoS. But I can't find a section there that deals with the format for listing birthplace. Am I missing it? Thanks. EvaristoAugello (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The link at WP:NOTUSA deals with abbreviating United States anywhere. "New York City" is a phrase that can be used to disambiguate the city from New York State, but "New York" is the proper name of both places; New York City is a sufficiently well-known place (like Chicago, London, Paris, Moscow and others) that it doesn't need to be qualified by supplying the state and country, but if they are supplied, then the disambiguating "City" becomes unnecessary. WP:OVERLINK discourages linking major geographic areas. The United States clearly qualifies; I tend to think that most countries, the U.S. states, and Canadian provinces (and probably Australian states) also qualify, but that's not clearly agreed across Wikipedia, so I tend not to force the issue in most cases.

As far as splitting article titles into two links (e.g., New Haven, Connecticut instead of New Haven, Connecticut), I wish I could find a specific mention in the MoS, but I can't. Several editors tend to have preferences one way or the other that they periodically make blanket changes for, so i generally leave either format as it was and let others work that one out. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

Just a note to say I didn't mean to overturn your last edit at Shooting of Trayvon Martin. I've been trying to make an edit there for the past 10 or 15 minutes but each time have been blocked as a result of edit conflict or some system or network wackiness. So please excuse my having erased any grammar/punctuation changes you had just made. Dezastru (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hiram Johnson & Scopes Trial

May I ask why you are rolling back the external links I recently added to an impartial historical resource (other than, perhaps, because the word "progressive" is in the title?) You clearly reverted the changes before taking the time to examine what was being linked to. kevincmurphy (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the edit summary was rather clear. Wikipedia is not a place to publicize your own web site. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's a resource for people to find useful and pertinent information on issues that are of interest to them. The links I've added are completely appropriate in that regard. I don't stand to gain anything from the links to my site. The point is giving people access to the research. (talk) 13:21 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet it seems that of the thousands of editors on Wikipedia, you are the only one to have stumbled across this treasure trove of valuable resources which just happen to have been written by you and are hosted on your personal website. This is pure self-promotion. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The website has only recently been uploaded in its current form, so even if there *were* thousands of Wikipedia editors scouring every corner of the web for information to add about Hiram Johnson, they wouldn't have found this research until quite recently. That's why I'm posting it -- because it's relevant to the specific topic/s on Wikipedia, and the entire point of putting this research in an online format was to make it more readily available to people who are interested. Perhaps you should try actually clicking through and reading the links first next time. kevincmurphy (talk) 13:54 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've had my own website for over sixteen years now, and haven't bothered to run around Wikipedia adding it to places, because it wasn't historical in nature. If I was doing this for the self-promotion, I'm pretty bad at it. kevincmurphy (talk) 13:57 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in. kevincmurphy, I'm posting this here, rather than on your talk page, since there's already a relevant discussion underway on this page. I just reverted your link. For one thing, I'm not persuaded that it meets the guideline, and I also note you have a conflict of interest. While I take you at your word that your actions are not intentionally promotional in nature, I think you should know that adding a link to your own site is never a good idea, and repeatedly adding it without consensus is completely unacceptable. Suggestion: open a discussion at the external links noticeboard to determine whether there is consensus to add it. Rivertorch (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Without consensus? Completely unacceptable? Because one user "of Confederate heritage" keeps rolling back a useful, impartial link -- without reading it and presumably because it contains the word "progressivism," since there's no other reason to do so -- to a work of university-sanctioned, peer-reviewed historical research, there's "no consensus" and the information therein is therefore null and void? That's ridiculous. But, you know what? Fine, I'm done with trying to be useful here. No wonder this site is dying. kevincmurphy (talk) 14:14 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Template: PD-NJGov

There is a new proposal on the table at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_11#Template:PD-NJGov for a modified template. If you have the chance, could you please review it? DavidinNJ (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint/Mormon missionary category redundancy

Re: Janne M. Sjödahl being in both Category:Swedish Latter Day Saints and Category:Swedish Mormon missionaries. In my experience, we almost never remove a Latter Day Saint by nationality category because it is "redundant" to a Mormon missionary by nationality category. In part, this is because being a Mormon missionary is not terribly defining for many Latter Day Saints. But it also avoids the "ghettoization" issue of articles being pushed to the furthest possible subcategory, which has been discussed quite extensively at WP:CFD lately due to the moving of many articles into "FOOian women writers" categories at the expense of moving them out of "FOOian writers". After the whole blow up with the "exposé" article in the NY Review of Books, the consensus seems to be that some technical redundancies in category application are desirable. I think this is a case where that would be accepted. (Do I still get that 25 cents?) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If that is the rationale, perhaps overcategorization glut should be avoided by deleting Category:Fooian Mormon missionaries from articles where it is not defining for the subject. Then, if being a Mormon missionary is a defining characteristic, further classifying herm as a Latter Day Saint is clearly redundant. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In theory I agree that that might be the best solution. Across many articles, the problem may be with the old chestnut: when is it defining and when is it not? I like to think of it in relation to notability—are they notable for their missionary work or for something else?—but others have taken quite a much broader view of what "defining" means. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course if we want to have a truly defining characteristic, we should create Category:Mormon men who were not missionaries. But doesn't the same objection apply to all uses of IAR? Across many articles, or in this case categories, the problem is when is a parent category so critical that it absolutely must be included? And shouldn't the parent categories seen as indispensable all have an {{Allincluded}} template and/or have {{Distinguished subcategory}} templates in the appropriate subcategories – after consensus for the variance is reached at CFD?

I think that was the basic understanding prior to the NY Review of Books imbroglio. Now I'm not sure what the deal is with the overall "redundancy" issue. There were a bunch of nominations on the issue in the immediate wake, but I don't think they resolved much. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

[Untitled ignorant personal attack]

Hello, please refrain from pushing your views on Wikipedia. I understand that you identify strongly with and support the values of the former illegal state: The Confederate States of America which was founded on the principals of racism and slavery. Since these are extremist and reactionary positions in our modern society, I recommend you think carefully about whether your contributions truly advance the goals of Wikipedia. Thank you.

Best,

AnonWikiCitizen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.129.35 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Electra 2013 image(s)

Hi. Just wanted to give you a heads up on your t.p. that I replied in detail re. Carmen Electra on the article's talk page concerning images, several of which caught my interest for the article:

• 
  Carmen in Austria #1
• 
  Carmen in Austria #2
• 
  Carmen in Austria #3
• 
  Carmen in Austria #4

Also, I'm fine with our cropping the #1 image, if that's the one we decide to go with, but I wonder if you would handle that, as I don't know how to losslessly-crop and would hate to make a mess of it. Thankfully, the images are all licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and they all come from the same Commons user and photographer who was present at the event where Carmen was captured in all her 2013-splendor (wow!). I do wish the ones of her singing were more flattering and devoid of other performers, however, but oh well. Anyway, I'll look to hear from you wherever - here, on the article's talk page or on my tp. Cheers! Azx2 20:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The Information I added on Jack Nicholson that you removed

It was taken from IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000197/bio The information was pretty clear in his bio. I don't know how to add references, but would like you to know that I didn't just make it up. Lawrence142002 (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Lawrence142002

User-submitted trivia added to an anonymously written biography on IMDb doesn't seem to meet reliable source requirements. Do you have this information anywhere else in an actual RS? Fat&Happy (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Electra 2013 image(s)

Hi Fat&Happy, thanks for your ongoing feedback. Wanted to let you know I made the change to Carmen Electra and went with the image #3 we all agreed on. I respond in detail on the article talk page, where I again ask you and user:Tsui for additional feedback concerning the article's second image. If you could respond there, that would be great and I'd appreciate hearing from you again. (Can't say enough how nice it is to get near real-time feedback on a proposed change!!) Cheers! Azx2 16:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

G talk p.

Whew. this has been a workout. I've made every argument I can possibly make and they're all legitimate. I always knew, as I said to you, that this section would arouse opposition and disgruntlement. To be expected. But this person clearly has an agenda. Mine is truly to protect the integrity of the article. How are you?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been considering an informal request for comments for a couple of days now and finally got off my butt and did it; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Garbo. We'll see if anyone else has an opinion.

As far as public discussion on Wikipedia goes, I'm doing fine, thanks for asking. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Great. Now, what do you think of the latest pow pow? Wow! The problem I'm having is that I have been building a multi-faceted argument that is both carefully systematic and rational. Yet these folks don't respond to any of my points. They just repeat the same stuff, with one or two exceptions from Light Show. What do you make of this? Also, is there a name for a hostile outbreak or attack? Is there a policy about it? Anyway, I'm going to let the goddamned thing go now. I've exhausted all my powers of scholarship. Especially since no one seems to be listening to, or thinking about, what I'm saying. I hope the section is not twisted beyond recognition. It's a damn good section as it stands now and it has stood for 2 years. Glad you're fine, FH. I'm fine but tired now.-Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Query

Hi FH, no comment on my recent queries? Everything OK?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm gratified that Rivertorch put the matter in a clear, current, perspective with ustanding of the methodological difficulties involved in writing about GBLT people. A big relief to me since no one else seemed to be the least bit interested in this critically important point (interesting in itself)--which I discussed twice. A historian starts with a question about which there is no, little, or muddled understanding. But it's virtually always the case that research in the humanities and social science begins with an intuition. Scholarship, then, can never be entirely objective. Furthermore, "objectivity" is only something we can aspire to but never fully achieve because it's always embedded a priori in paradigms of thought and action. Blah blah blah. Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. To a certain extent I was taking your last post as frustration-driven rhetorical questions which didn't have any really good answer, and I was hoping someone else would comment on the GG talk page to help break the logjam. I agree that Rivertorch's comment was on point but wish it had been more expansive. Tho' often pithy works best. S/he is one of the names I recognize from various articles and always expect a cogent comment, even if I don't agree on a particular issue. I also wish more people would comment. As you may have concluded from my original post on the project talk page asking for more eyes, I'm still a bit unsure on how the rules for this topic should be interpreted. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think River crystalized the essence of the entire debate. I wonder if anyone could add anything that would substantively contribute to the conversation. All possible angles, points, so far as I can tell, have been made.

I spoke out of turn on several occasions td the end and should have ignored the angry outburst. And yes. Out of frustration. I made many serious points that were not addressed by anyone and so felt I was speaking in a vacuum. Until River piped in. Will keep an eye on the talk and GG pp. for a few days but have nothing more to say or do. I leave it to the gods to sort out what will happen to this section. Take care, classic.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we all react to things sometimes that we later wish we had just ignored. I was interested to see this post at the LGBT Project talk page shortly after mine. maybe we'll get some more opinions in the next few days. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason my comment wasn't more expansive was because I thought Classicfilmbuff's extensive remarks had covered the bases already. As I said on my talk page, I'll continue to watch the article for a while and I may say something else on the talk page if I think of anything new and relevant to say. I could elaborate on what I said, I suppose, but only in very general terms—I know little about GG—and I'm doubtful that would help. Rivertorch (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Rivertorch, Glad you'll be keeping an eye on the talk p. for a while.

FH, just read your post on the LGBT talk p. Very good. Though have no idea how I got to the p. Can you send link? Also, the link you sent with Light's comment goes to the revision page. I'd like to add this p. to my watchlist.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Click this link → Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies then click "Watch" on the page. As far as I know, it works like other areas so adding the main page to your watchlist also adds the talk page. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been to this page but don't see the section on G, which I saw somewhere else. (btw, my friend, did you think I didn't know how to click "watch"? I was under the impression you had some confidence in my limited technological capabilities in the Wiki ecosystem. ;--) Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm. The talk page for that link has a section called "Garbo", third from the bottom, and a section called "James Dean article", second from the bottom. Those are the two I'd linked to earlier. Don't know if there's another discussion somewhere that I've missed or forgotten. (Yeah, I figured you had to know how to watch a page, but you keep telling me how technically weak you are so often i just got in the habit of being precise.) Fat&Happy (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We just had an edit cnflict. Writing simultaneously. Nevermind. Got it. Click "talk" to the right of "Watchlist" in the column to the right of the p. Pleased with myself for sleuthing this out on my own. Btw, are you using beta editing? Any thoughts on this addition?Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Good.

Haven't tried it at all. In fact, based on some preference setting I have, I don't even see it as an option; my only choice is the "edit source" link. Which does not make me unhappy based on some of the results I've seen. It seems to be quite buggy, requiring people who have some idea what they're doing to follow along and clean up the mess afterwards, sort of like when the circus paraded elephants through town in the old days. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Your reversion on Macau

Hi,

I understand why you reverted my edit on Macau, I am disappointed though that you did not also fix East Asia which was the source of my edit. XOttawahitech (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Originally an oversight; I glanced at the East Asia article, and saw Macau and Hong Kong in the infobox, indented under China. I didn't notice them in the other two tables. I guess the correct fix would be to change the column headings in the tables to "Country/Territory" to correspond to the infobox listing. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

LGBT page

Hi there. I'm going to take the LGBT p. off my watchlist so if anyone responds to your GG question, will you alert me on my talk p.? I'm also going to stop watching your p. if and until we strike up the band again. Macao. You are indeed amazing. Have a good weekend. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

We must be linked by ESP. You made almost exactly the same changes to Sergey Aleynikov that I was going to make. Except you made them at the exact same time I was making them (within the same 5 minutes window).

AaronJ at mst.edu (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha. Interesting timing; I had thought about making the changes a day or two ago, but couldn't be bothered to figure out the exact change to make. Then I was motivated by the IP editor who started the ball rolling (was that you, before registering?)

Thanks for the kitten. 's cute. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carlo Gambino may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• october/18/newsid_2453000/2453185.stm|work=On This Day|publisher=BBC|accessdate=August 11, 2013}}</ref> He was buried in [[Saint John's Cemetery, Queens]] in New York City, as was Charles Luciano,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

T4 and hate images

First, I'm not quite sure why you are continuing to remove referenced factual content on the T4 article.

As an aside, please remove the racist 'Confederate' flag from your user page. That's no different from decorating your page with Swastikas. See [2]. Wikipedia policy says "you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute." -- User:Poet of Freedom —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"Factual" is a seriously odd choice of words when you're sourcing to a diary on Redstate. Let's more accurately rephrase your addition being from "Some random anonymous person who despises Obama on their own personal diary ..." and call your addition "referenced opinionated garbage". Now THEN we'd be factual. And would remove it from essentially everywhere except for some random anonymous person's personal diary. Ravensfire (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just for your general brilliance. Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Queen Christina

Greetings my friend, I'm trying to edit the Queen Christina (film) page and need your help. An editor states that QC didnt do as well at the box office as the studio expected. Problems: 1) incorrect, 2) source is a tiny review from a contemporary and insignificatn web publication that makes no mention of the studio's expectation. But, every time I try to change it, I get a red error in the reference section.

Whoops, just saw that review does mention b.o. expectation. But still illeg. source. I want to cite the numbers which show it was one of her most profitable flix. Me again.

Here's the sentence and ref: "Although it did not perform as well as the studio had expected, Thanks for your help, --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, scratch previous message. Sorry for my scattered brain. Still noodling with this before dinner. Here's the edit with ref. (hope my format is correct but I'm out of practice) When I experiement in sandbox, huge error message.

"The film earned over $2,500,000, earning the studio a profit of $632,000 and becoming one of Garbo’s most commercially successful films."

Will you check to see if this will work?

OK, I'm a bit slow today (though hopefully not as bad as yesterday, when – if you were to look at the edit history for Carlo Gambino – it took me a ridiculous number of attempts to correctly make one small change). But back to the subject at hand: I see your text, but I'm not sure exactly what you want to substitute it for. Are you completely eliminating the comment about MGM expecting better results, even though I think Allrovi is considered a pretty reliable source on Wikipedia? I'm also not sure about the double use of "earn"; currently the $632K is called profit, but the $2.5 million is ambiguous – is that total profit over 80 years, or total gross? And if profit, what time frame did the $632K represent? All of which are nits having nothing to do with your references error problem, but I'm just not comfortable making changes I don't understand if I'm also not sure they're exactly what you meant. Alternatively, you could just go ahead and change the text however you want, because I know what caused the error message you got before and can fix that as soon as I see the change has been made. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I realized later that I should have used "grossed' instead of "earned"; fatigue. Yes, must eliminate MGM expection because, as I say, it is incorrect. The film grossed $2.5 mill and recorded a profit of $632K in 1933 when it was released. I think this should clarify any ambiguity or confusion:

"The film grossed over $2,500,000, recording a profit of $632,000 and becoming one of Garbo’s most commercially successful films".

I'll go ahead and edit the p. Feel free to tweak. Can you tell me what has consistently caused the error message (unless its really complicated in which case I very likely won't understand you)? But I'd like to know in case this comes up again.

One other point. Your date formatting is correct because must be consistent with punctuation of quotations, which uses European (British) style. British English puts commas and periods outside qt. mrk, as in article, and Amern English has them inside. Greetings, Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think it's fixed now. The major message you kept seeing was because the "Allmovie" review had been used as a ref in two different places as a so-called "named reference", where a name is assigned to one (usually the first) of the places it's used and then only the name is used in all other occurrences. When you deleted the "less than expected" comment, you also deleted the use of the ref where the name was defined, so the other use below it had no way to know what the actual citation was. Simply copying the original cite to the remaining occurrence eliminated the message. Then there was a more minor error because for the Paris book, you specified the ISBN as though it were a manual, free-form cite — ISBN 978-0-12-345678-6 – rather than the {{Cite book}} template format of isbn=978-0-12-345678-6.

Ah Ha! I get you. Thanks for spending the time first to figure this out and second to explain it to me. Good teaching.

Thanks for the support, but actually at this time the two topics aren't really related. Wikipedia's MoS says to use logical quotation punctuation, sometimes called British style, regardless of whether the article in general uses British English or American English. (Didn't check, but I'm pretty sure the Garbo article uses "honor"/"organization" type spelling.) But there's currently a debate and request for comments on that very subject occurring at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: punctuation when quoting. And as far as the dates themselves go, If I had begun the article from scratch, I probably would have used American mdy format, out of habit if nothing else. But I didn't write the article from scratch, and whoever did – several years ago – apparently used dmy style, which it had when I first came there, and there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to change it just for the sake of change. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well I think this debate is interesting and will follow your link. I'm in total agreement with your last sentence. I wonder why someone would bother to change it? Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

OMG! I'm stunned by the volume of comments on this small topic. Seems like such a simple thing to resolve and yet the discussion is just endless. Fascinating tht all these people would choose to spend their time on this fundamentally picayune subect. Anyway, every style mentioned is used throughout WP. To unify would be like herding cats I should think.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverting at Tom Cruise

Considering the discussion on the talk, it is highly inappropriate of you to revert without explanation on the talk where a number of us are discussing changes. Furthermore, due to ArbCom restrictions, you should be careful in this regard. If you continue to do so, I will alert admins per WP:BLP. Laval (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Political image of Barack Obama, Popular culture

The earlier 'UK' before Boris Johnson, helped to distinguish him from a London, Ontario Mayor.Beingsshepherd (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Yeah; I considered that since the article title for the UK capital is the undisambiguated, unqualified name London, the overall Wikipedia view is that few people (even those like me who had friends from London, Ontario, growing up) were likely to wonder "which London?" And as HiLo48 points out, those few who think to wonder, and actually care, can always click to confirm that we mean the usual one. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why the surly attitude? The overall Wikipedia view is that Boris Johnson's name's unambiguous, but that didn't prevent you from elaborating. Maybe the page SHOULD be titled: City of London:

'I wonder if London exists. There's greater London and the city of London but what is London? Should this page actually be a disambuguation (that crazy, Wikipedia made-up word) page?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Surly? Surly you jest!

Anyway, it's a moot point for the moment since the appointed guardians of the page have again reverted even my simple two-word compromise addition as unnecessary. Somehow, though, I doubt that a scientific poll of English-speaking populations would find anywhere near as many respondents familiar with the name "Boris Johnson" as are familiar with the name "London". Perhaps in London itself, but even there I have my doubts if Brits are even half as unaware of their leaders as Amis are. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but insofar as your penultimate point regarding the compendious wisdom of Wiki; his biography's title isn't: Boris Johnson (Mayor of London). I think both should be more specific. Nm.Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Deep South

Your revert of my edit is quite right. I was looking at North Carolina. Thanks! 108.115.140.103 (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Bias categories question

Hello. In line with your zealous work on reverting bad edits, you just now reverted my edit to Robert Jeffress, based on "false equivalence." You seem to be a pretty active Wikipedian, so I'm ready to assume you're right and I was wrong. That said, would you please explain to me why the equivalence was false? (I thought about just adding "Critics of Catholicism" to his page, but no such category exists. It seems to me that in line with the current policy on bias categories (that, e.g. "anti-Catholicism" or "anti-Semitism" may not be used in biographical articles), that there's now an asymmetry whereby Jeffers' anti-LDS or anti-Muslim statements can be categorized, but not, e.g., anti-Catholic ones. Do you think the best solution for removing the asymmetry is to create a "Critics of Catholicism" category? It seemed to me that that would just duplicate the problems that have plagued the "anti-Catholicism" category. Hence my deletion of the two "Critic" categories in an attempt to remove the logical asymmetry. As you've reverted my edit, I assume you have a different perspective. What do you think ought to be done about the category issue?

Many thanks, Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. First, please don't assume I'm right because I am active (although I obviously always prefer to think I am). But as to your actual issue, I also noted (and dislike) the asymmetry; before reverting, I even drilled down from Category:Critics of religions to be sure a Catholic critics cat didn't exist under some nonstandard name. And I considered creating a "Critics of Catholicism" category, but didn't, primarily because of laziness but also because I wasn't prepared to deal with the inevitable carping about whether it should be "Catholicism", "Roman Catholicism", "the Catholic church", "the Catholic Church", or some other variation. The additional category still seems like the best approach, though. (If it is created, we probably want to also include Fred Phelps, who is currently included in Category:Critics of Islam, Category:Critics of Judaism, and Category:Critics of atheism, outscoring Jeffress 3–2.) Fat&Happy (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! You're right that deciding on the name for that Catholicism critics' category is going to be . . . just ugly. I think "Critics of the Catholic Church" is probably the least bad, but any name will offend someone, especially Anglo-Catholic Anglicans (if "Roman" isn't added to Catholic) and Byzantine Rite and other eastern Catholics (if "Roman" IS added). Sigh.

Also, I visited the "critics of" categories page you listed just now and, wow, "everybody's a critic." Considering that holding any religious viewpoint is at least an implicit "criticism" of all the other religions for being wrong, is there a sound argument for just scrapping all of these "critic of" categories? Are they doing useful work? I'd like to somehow raise this topic on WP:CFD, but I want to get advice from my wiki-elders before sticking a pole into that beehive.

Thanks again, Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're free to try at CfD; I probably wouldn't take a stand either way (which doesn't preclude possible snarky comments on either or both sides). My guess is that attempting to completely delete the categories wouldn't get too far. If applied properly, the cats should only include those who are notable for their statements criticizing Fooianism, which could probably be seen as a defining characteristic. But I'm far from an expert on categories, so if you approach it with the intent of testing the waters and not getting offended if the proposal is shot down, it seems like a case of "nothing ventured, nothing gained". OTOH, if this is something you're really interested in, it might be more productive to just look over the articles of those in the categories and clean up any junk there. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Mayors Against Illegal Guns

I understand your reason for removing the category "Firearms related groups", but if anyone (a reporter, someone in academia, or just a general reader) is looking for a list of these groups (pro-, anti-, otherwise) they will not see this group unless they dig into the sub-category. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is how subcategories work across Wikipedia. The recently created parent category is a good idea to group all participants on the issue, but it really should be a fully diffused category, directly containing only the two subcats. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the two subs are essentially POV. Granted those groups want to be perceived that way, but there might also be groups that are "Firearms related", but not necessarily pro- control or rights. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm. I thought about that possibility as I was phrasing my reply, but since I couldn't think of any off the top of my head, I let the generalization stand. (I suppose that technically MAIG doesn't consider themselves pro-gun control, since their official stance is only opposition to illegal guns.) Fat&Happy (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

GMTA... My other motive is that I'm trying to diffuse some of the tension between the two sides at least here on WP if by no other means than demonstrating that the issue is not so polarized. The bashing that even the vaguely "gun related" articles have taken since last December has been miserable. A lot of WP Good rated articles have been demoted, one of which is the one on the Second Amendment. With any luck we'll be cleaning that up and returning it to "good" status again. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Impressively varied list of articles that you've edited.... wow! Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits at Ron Paul

(Generic warning:)

Your recent editing history at Ron Paul shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being as experienced as you are, I truly feel this is inexcusable. I began a discussion at Ron Paul's talk page, which really is something YOU should have done. Please join the discussion before reverting again, or I will be forced to report you for edit warring. PrairieKid (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Prairie, not really. The addition or deletion of a category usually isn't something that is spurious or contentious unless its blatantly a POV move or violates WP:BLP. F&H seems like a pretty easy going person, but that's no excuse for the wording that you chose to use or the threat you threw out in starting communication over a fairly low level issue. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The 3RR is the 3RR, whatever it is for. I understand that a category isn't important, but I don't think this way the best way to go, especially for such an experienced editor. PrairieKid (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 3RR is 3RR, but that shouldn't stop you from communicating in a civil manner. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

MdA problem

Hi FH, it's been a while! Hope you're well. I was looking for a reference and noticed a problem with fn 37. Can you check it out? Smooth sailing to you,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I fixed the immediate problem. Have a related question, though. Did you supply that ref originally? It refers to a time in the video for the comments it's supposed to be supporting, but there's no link to the video, which lessens its usefulness. Have you seen a link that's not a copyright violation? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

MdA, Cont'd

Thanks for fixing the fn, my friend. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, why is your p. so often empty? You used to have a lot of threads going that were visible to all. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Tina Turner The Queen of Rock and Roll

Hello User:Fat&Happy I do not understand because they leave append in the first paragraph of article information from Tina Turner as The Queen of Rock and Roll, knowing that is important information.

As should be the first paragraph of Article:

Anna Mae Bullock (born November 26, 1939), known by her stage name Tina Turner, is a singer, dancer, actress, author, and choreographer, whose career has spanned more than half a century, earning her widespread recognition and numerous awards. Born and raised in the United States, she lives in Switzerland and holds Swiss citizenship. His career developed over fifty years ago, one of the most significant cultural icons of the rock, he is often referred to as "The Queen of Rock".

--Artistofrockandrollartist (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Old glory

This flag is presented to the pseudonymous Wikipedia editor known only as "Fat&Happy", in appreciation for many years of phenomenal editing and administrating with respect to disputes and skirmishes relevant to the United States. Above and beyond any barnstar, this particular battle flag is specifically selected to fly (if anywhere) at the talk page of this happy editor.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to truncate or remove the caption, and/or adjust the size. I thought this flag would go well with (and complement) your stars and bars. Anyway, if you don't like it, feel free to delete, but don't let it touch the ground. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha, nice. I do like it. I hope you won't be offended, though, if I try to refactor it a bit for aspect ratio and switch it to my user page, since I have talk being cleaned out to archives fairly quickly. (It's an interesting arrangement of stars instead of the 7×5 WP shows as being the standard for that time frame. I guess the square canton was better for the squarish battle flag configuration.) Fat&Happy (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad you like it. All those changes would be fine, but maybe you would also consider something like the archives box at below right.

By the way (if you believe Wikipedia), this regiment "sustained 97 casualties in the Battle of John's Island in the first week of July, 1864. The unit also fought at Chapin's Farm, McKay's Point and Deveraux's Neck, incurring a total of 140 casualties." All of that in South Carolina. I enjoyed my 6-month visit to South Carolina in 1982, and got much exercise there at a place near Columbia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, but kinda ruins the image.

Now you're just trying to make me work. With the mentions of SC battles, I had to go check the Glory article to refresh my memory on whether that was the same regiment (though NYC didn't sound quite right, I had forgotten it was Mass.-based.) Fat&Happy (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, a little makeover never hurt. Just don't change your editing! BTW, here's the link of the unit that flew this flag. I think it's the only flag at Wikipedia/Wikimedia that was flown by black troops during the Civil War. No pressure though, you can do with it what you like. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, with all due respect to your efforts, when I decide it's time for another makeover, I would most likely start by restoring my all-time-favorite barnstar to the archive box, as last seen here. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That works!  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

donald rumsfeld war crime controversy

hi fat&happy, you removed a whole paragraph from the article donald rumsfeld. would you be so kind to explain your reasoning a little more here? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

New GG edits

Hi F&H, an editor has made an interesting change in the number of nominations for A wards G received. Perhaps you've seen them. I recommended that s/he cite the change (sounds legit) at the beginning otherwise someone will likely change it back since nobody knows about this, including all the authors I've read. Can you go to my talk p. and help this person with the sourcing?

Meanwhile, I miss you! Hope you've been having a fine weekend. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been sort of following the changes and discussion; I'll try to play catch-up and stop by tomorrow to see how I might be able to help. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

THanks dude. hope you had nice wkend. Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I can't believe the extent of your research on this problem/issue. I'll be disappointed if the editor doesn't respond. I hope it's not to complex and time-consuming for him/her to take the time and do it right. I know i dont have the time. Back again, Your pal, Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, as has happened before, my somewhat verbose writing style makes it look like there was more work behind it than there actually was.

The one part of my comments I was hoping you could help out with is the secondary sources, since you seem to have – or at least have easy access to – the major bios. What do Paris, Vieira, Swenson, et al. say about her and the Oscars? As implied at the end of my comments, I sort of favor fudging the issue if the bios don't make a definitive statement on counts. Like, for the lead or an intro: "Garbo received Academy Award Best Actress nominations for her work in four films...", then for 1930 "she was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar for her work in both Romance and Anna Christie". Etc., etc., etc. (mixing sources – I saw the Rex Harrison non-musical version on TCM over the weekend). Fat&Happy (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

All the bios say 4. but ""Garbo received Academy Award Best Actress nominations for her work in four films...", sounds like it would be ok. But again, some editor will likely come along and add them up. I proposed a footnote. see my p. I'm going to copy paste your idea on my talk p. can we stick to my p. for this discussion? cheers Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing "lobbyist" inclusions

You brazenly removed all of my edits to pages of politicians whose current employment is now in lobbying. My source is the Center for Responsive Politics: http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z. What they're currently doing is by definition notable and is also in line with the pages of several others - Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, and Tom Daschle, to name a few. I will be reinserting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.101.240 (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

68.180.101.240

I've opened a discussion at WP:BLPN involving recent edits by 68.180.101.240 at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#User:68.180.101.240_and_lobbyists. Gamaliel (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nixon

Just wondering why you reverted my edit...anyone can "receive" a pardon, it only takes effect when it is "accepted." Knoper (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not accurate. A pardon is effective as soon as the pardoning party (usually a governor or the president in the U.S.) signs it. For one thing, if acceptance by the pardoned party were a requirement, it would not be possible to grant posthumous pardons, which does happen. More to the point, in common English usage a pardon is usually associated with an action by the pardoner, not the pardonee. Unless a pardon is made conditional, "acceptance" is pretty much assumed. BTW, do you have a reliable source that says Nixon actually "accepted" the pardon? Fat&Happy (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Aitken discusses in some depth Nixon's reluctance to accept the pardon. Knoper (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and question.

Hello Fat&Happy. I appreciate your diligence on verifying WP rules on edits. I'm flying fast during breaks at the editing day job and sometimes apply the other style book.

Unrelated question: where did you get the heritage banners on your user page? I like them, and would like to post some. Desertroadbob (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

And, sorry, but I'm again reverting the numerous WP:LQ violations at Alex Jones.

There is a load of templates available for userboxes, as they are called. Many, but probably (as for everything in Wikipedia) not all, of them can be found in Category:Ethnicity user templates or the super-parent Category:Userboxes. A few of mine (Canadian, CSA, and Irish) are my own modifications to other templates because there was something or other I didn't like about the standard ones. If you happen to want to use any of those three, feel free to copy the code, which can be found by following the clicks from the bottom of my user page. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information about templates. I'll check those resources out when I find the time. Your Irish and CSA modification will come in handy, as will the standard Scottish, German and USA templates. Do they have one for Celts in general?

See {{User Celtic Ancestry}}. There may be others. (I guess I could probably add that one myself, what with the Irish and Scottish – but adding only one would sort of throw off the balance of the page, and it seems a bit like using both a parent and child category for the same page.) Fat&Happy (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

ETA: I just noticed that the above template is in yet another category, Category:European user templates, confirming at least the second part of my "most ... but not all" comment above. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Back to the main topic: Rather than exchanging reverts, let's talk. I'm coming at the punctuation from a modified AP style (admission of bias). But, regardless, most of the instances seem to meet the intent of the first rule in WP:LQ: the period or comma is a logical extension of the thought and likely to have been in the original source (or its transcript). What is your thinking? Desertroadbob (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hardly. The majority of changes were to structures similar to the second example at WP:LQ:

Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable".

The quoted material is a small descriptive phrase nowhere close to a complete sentence requiring a full stop. The exception is a sentence about Jones being told to lay off a bunch of topics, A to Z. The quoted portion there is likely to have been a full sentence, though it's not 100% clear; I had originally meant to manually change that one, but it looks like I hit save without doing so. I see no way any of the others qualify as part of the quoted text. (Bear in mind that we are quoting Jones – or others commenting on him – not the author of the article reporting what was said. If, e.g., The Huffington Post chooses to use a manual of style which differs from Wikipedia's, our articles still need to follow the WP MoS.) Fat&Happy (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect edit

The edit you have made on the United States Armed Forces is wrong. US conscription was abolished in February 1973. Please don't make an edit like that again. (Chipperdude15) (talk)

Conscription was not used after December 1972, and I will continue to make whatever edits I deem appropriate. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph

You seem extremely active on a wide variety of topics. I've made a dozen or so edits in 6 months. I see that you've done much more than that just today.

Perhaps you could tidy up the page:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Thomas

It needs a disambiguation section and 3 separate entries for

(1) The Australian Writer.

(2) The Welsh Singer (I put some info in the Talk section).

(3) The Canadian native rights political activist.

From 86.159.40.236, alias 86.167.187.81, alias 86.169.93.78

86.159.40.236 (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Mary Thomas page itself doesn't seem to need much cleaning up. As far as I can see, the issue is that neither of the other two people you mention have separate articles about them; for the Welsh singer, one obituary – seemingly written by a friend or associate – may be a good starting point, but isn't really enough to justify an article. My editing is more of the "fix-it" type, not creating full articles from scratch. But if you or someone else adds an article on either the singer or the activist (as an aside, I would probably have more interest in the activist), I would be happy to check over for manual of style or format type changes. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:IMOS

"The place of birth, residence and/or death of people who were born, lived or died before 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland should be given simply as "Ireland" (my emphsis), Sorry Fat&Happy, but Neeson isnt that old! Mind you, you have shown a slight missed point post-1922 isnt clarified. Will get that changed. Murry1975 (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm Thewikiguru1. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Steve Ballmer because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Thewikiguru1 (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Rude dissent

Hey Fat Ass, how is it irrelevant to point out the racism rooted in the town Helms grew up in, the racist justice system his father embodied by abusing blacks in front of other blacks, all of this when it says in the article itself as a lawmaker he opposed the Civil and Voting Rights Act, let alone the Martin Luther King legacy he tried to erase by opposing his holiday? just from your profile you look like you fit right with the likes of Helms and the KKK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.88.150 (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to take the tag line at the top of this page personally. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi there F&H. Just wanted to check in and send greetings. Just made an adjustment in the GG relationships section that echoes our super charged discussion several months ago about her sexuality. I see you're still checking in. Good! I'm amazed that no one else has edited at all which seems to suggest the article's in good, stable shape. to my delight, I've been detaching from GG and WP editing in general. But if someone crazy comes along, I'll be there! Take care, --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The change definitely is better. Hope all is well. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet

I believe the book by James Whelan corroborates your edit "...tacitly supported by the United States" as opposed to "supported by the American Central Intelligence Agency" as restored by Abhimanyulele. (Whelan, James R. (1989). Out of the Ashes: Life, Death and Transfiguration of Democracy in Chile, 1833-1988. Regnery. ISBN 978-0-895-265531.) The CIA has also provided a reasonably detailed and credible accounting of its activities before, during, and after the coup at https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/chile/index.html. Claudeb (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There are obviously differing views of the actual level of involvement. My main objection is to taking one particular view, substantially different than the overall tone of the main article, and placing it in the lead as established fact. But at the moment I'm flirting with 3RR on the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm relatively new, so I'm not sure of the best approach, but if you want support on the article's talk page let me know. I agree that a disputed account shouldn't be presented as fact, and certainly not in the first para. Claudeb (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Again thanks. It's not one of my areas of primary interest, so I need to do a bit more research and regroup before pursuing this. I wouldn't want to run afoul of WP:CANVASS, but if the article is on your watch list anyway, you will be aware of any talk page discussion that ensues, and any support is always appreciated. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Reform of the United Nations Security Council

The Japan section presents a "happy talk" listing of parties which have supported Japanese permanent membership, but somehow fails to mention the inconvenient fact that some of Japan's closest neighbors oppose such membership, and so is overall unbalanced. AnonMoos (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the "happy talk" listing seems to be par for the course in that article, and I'm not surprised that – based on history alone, not to say current economic competition – Korea is uncomfortable with anything that would further empower Japan. But you're certainly aware that you still need sources. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

PPACA edit

Hey! Can you please show me the relevant MOS on pull quotes? I can't find any (searching with WP/MOS/HELP quotes/grab quotes/pull quotes). I'd really like to revert (because I like how the quote marks look and signal) but I wanted to check with your first? Thanks. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 08:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

MOS:Blockquote (it's not exactly in underlined boldface , but it's there) and the documentation of the {{Centered pull quote}} template itself. Fat&Happy (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

lol! Damn - seems a bit of a silly restriction, imo. *Sigh*, oh well. Thanks though. =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 12:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Carpetbagger

Hello, it looks like you deleted the addition of "parachutage" carpetbagger claiming there is no source. Did you check the link? It is mentioned in the titled. D0kkaebi (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Parachutage, or "parachuting", is in the title; "carpetbagging" is not. The article is about the term "carpetbagger". You presented no evidence of that word being used in France. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, "parachutage" is the translation of "carpetbagging". That's why you will arrive on "parachutage page if you click on the French version of the article "carpetbagging". D0kkaebi (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah ok, it looks like Wiki English link to carpetbaager in the French wikipedia, but French Wikipedia Carpetbagger Fr AND parachutage link to carpetbagger En [3]. Do you suggest it is a mistake of the French wikipedia? D0kkaebi (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from Google Translate – which is absolutely horrible for idioms in languages I know a bit about, so probably for French also – the actual translation of parachutage would be "parachuting", "drop" or "parachute drop". It's rather easy to see how this could be used as an equivalent of the English "carpetbag", and it's not unlikely that the usage is related to the World War II operation discussed in the article.

If I felt in any way qualified to edit the French Wikipedia – which I'm not, so I don't – I would probably make "carpetbagger" and "parachutage" mutual "See alsos" of each other, while interwiki linking carperbagger, but not parachutage, to the English article. Unfortunately, since I know of no standard way to create a cross-wiki "See also", I still don't think the inclusion of the French equivalent but different term in the English article is appropriate. But I'm one opinion out of a world of wiki editors. You may want to ask for other opinions on the article talk page. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I think you are right. I will modify this link on the French Wikipedia. Thank you D0kkaebi (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, here is another thing, Parachute candidate lead to carpetbagger/modern Use. Maybe the redirection page "parachute candidate" should be removed? D0kkaebi (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No. I don't think so. It's getting late here and both my eyelids and my system are acting a bit balky, so I may expand a bit tomorrow, but in the meantime look over Talk:Parachute candidate (the actual old talk page, not a redirect to the Carpetbagger talk page)and Talk: Carpetbagger, as well, maybe, as the last version of Parachute candidate before it was merged and/or redirected. Taken together, these give the impression that a parachute-based term is used in Canada and the UK as well as France; the carpetbagger terminology is pretty US-specific. IF there are a few good sources out there that actually describe the terms instead of just denigrating one particular candidate, it mght be best to try to fill out the article again. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok here is the source that explain about the politician parachutage: Bernard Dolez et Michel Hastings, Le parachutage politique, L'Harmattan, 2003 (ISBN 9782747549370). Here is the interview of Michel Hastings, author, who explain why it does not make sense to talk about parachutage for legislative election in France. [4], here history of parachutage in France [5] D0kkaebi (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I somehow missed your reply above and just now noticed it. Sorry. I'll try to remember to look at those refs sometime tomorrow, though on their face it looks like they should be useable. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Category:Italian-American actors

Hello Fat&Happy, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Italian-American actors, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Significantly different enough category to one deleted 2 1/2 years ago - discuss first. . You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed the Criteria for Speedy Deletion prior to tagging this page, but thank you for your suggestion. Since the definition of Italian American is a U.S. citizen of Italian ancestry, I fail to see the significant difference between this category and the thrice-deleted – the most recent a G4 on 19 September 2013 – Category:American actors of Italian descent, especially when an equivalence is drawn between the two by the Nominator at the latest CFD in an unlinked statement that Category:Italian-American actors had also been deleted four times.

May I ask what rationale you used to decide the two categories were "significantly different"? Fat&Happy (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi F&H.

The deleted categories were "American actors of [n] descent", which included [[Category:American actors of Italian descent]]. In my opinion, there is a difference between this and Category:Italian-American actors. The "American actors of Italian descent" category seems to me an arbitrary categorization relying simply on ancestry (see Category:American people of Italian descent). I think it was rightly deleted.

On the other hand, Italian American is rather more well-defined, with arguably a distinct identity within American society. By analogy, I would argue there is a case to be made for the retention of Category:Italian-American actors.

• Should Category:Italian-American actors be deleted? That's a very good question, and one that I think should be discussed.
• Should Category:Italian-American actors be speedily deleted? In my opinion, definitely no.

That is the rationale I used to decide the two categories were "significantly different", at least enough that the latter category should not be speedily deleted. Feel free to put the category up for speedy deletion again: another administrator may have a different view. This is a promise: if that comes about, I will have no problems with it. I would however ask that you do consider listing it as a category for deletion.

Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Jessie J and Demi Lovato stand up to complain!!!

Hey, Fat&Happy I'm JD3rulo, I'm not sure why you changed the pictures I hang up of those singers, they don't have any "forbidden" content, so if you could explain me, please let me a note in my user page. Thanks sweetheart. JD3rulo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

They appear to be clear copyright infringements, reproductions of published works with no valid license to use them from the creator/copyright holder. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Watching Edits

Out of curiosity, are you following my edits or is it just coincidence that you've often edited articles shortly after I edit them? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Lilly Collins.

You should really go to the talk page to discuss with others before editing. Lilly Collins was born in Britain so is British. She see's herself as British (because she is) always refers to herself as British and English. The only time she referred to herself as an American she followed straight up with "Even though i'm technically not even an American". She's constantly saying she's British. She just 'lives' in America for 10 or maybe less months a year (depending on work) and she spends 2 months a year back home in Britain. She even calls Britain her home!

I'm Portuguese, was born in Portugal, moved to Britain when i was 10 and have lived in Britain for 17yrs, but I'm still Portuguese whether i like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.38.23 (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This may come as a surprise, but we're not talking about you. Lily Collins was both an American citiza=en and a British subject the second she was born, and no evidence has been presented that she has relinquished her US citizenship. (The fact that she was raised primarily in America, while interesting, really has no bearing on this.) Fat&Happy (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Picking up edits

Hello, Fat&Happy. From our earlier discussion, I remember that you had an issue with the punctuation in my earlier edit on Alex_Jones, but you were actually OK with changing "over" to "more than". I finally got time to do those, so I'm heading over there and—since our reverts were the last edits—I didn't want it to seem like I was picking a fight. Regards, Desertroadbob (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

All good. Thx. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are you always removing the changes I make?

Hi, sweetheart, it's me JD3rulo again. Last time you didn't answered me but it's OK, I'm not a resentful person. Why you removed the paragraph I wrote about Jessie J's vocal range?, the right link which validates it is http://vocalranges.blogspot.com but another user let me a notification saying it's not reliable, so I don't understand, what are the sites that all of you consider reliable sources? If you could answer me, please let me a notification or write in my talk page, thanks. Have a nice day! JD3rulo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did respond to your previous post, here. Like many editors on WP, I prefer to keep threads at the location in which they are started.

The latest removal was, as stated in the edit summary, because the information added was nowhere to be found on the web page you used as a citation. You can't just make up sources for your additions when the actual source does not meet WP standards. Please see WP:RS for an overview of what are considered "reliable sources". Note that even if the extremely laudatory information about her voice had been present on her official web site, as toy posted, it would have failed the restrictions on self-published sources as being overly self-serving. The bio on a performer's official site can usually be used for, e.g., birth date, location where raised and other fairly neutral things like that. It can't be used for stating what an exceptional voice they have. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of R. Allen's Pocket Fowler's in American and British English spelling differences

I read the headline on your talk page, but your actions do make you look like someone who cares, so...

Anyhoo, you reverted my edit to the American and British English spelling differences#Greek-derived spellings#-ise, -ize (-isation, -ization)#British usage, as "unhelpful argumentation". You may be right in that, but what I was trying to counter, perhaps badly, was the statement higher up that says "many reference works, including the Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, prefer -ise." The problem is that, since Allan's Pocket Fowler's uses, e.g. "realize" not "realise", except in quotations, i.e. follows OUP practise, the existing statement is, at best, disingenuous if not actually a lie. I admit it's probably better to delete the inaccuracy than counter it, but a suitable rewording of what would be left does not leap out at me. So, if you don't like what I did, how do you suggest dealing with the terminological inexactitude that's currently there? Graham.Fountain | Talk 11:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding; I was out most of the day, and as luck would have it was unable to access the Internet due to an apparent problem with the DNS server.

If additional sources clearly stating who says or does what are available, there are probably multiple options, but assuming we're restricted to the citations already in place, I would do something like:

Change the first paragraph from:

The dominant British English usage of -ise has long been preferred by authorities such as Cambridge University Press, and many reference works, including the Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, prefer -ise.

to:

The dominant British English usage of -ise is preferred by Cambridge University Press. Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage considers either usage to be acceptable anywhere except the US.

(This seems to be a more accurate representation of the Fowler's quotation in the cite.)

I would not add observations about the usage in Fowler's itself as being original research, and would also delete "The Oxford Guide to Style, on the other hand, while not directly addressing the subject, follows OUP practice in using -ize." for the same reason. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No Need to apologize, there's no rush. Yes, I think your suggestion for the rewording gets there, though I would think it might upset whoever wrote it in the first place. I assume this because it looks like they want to prove the correctness of their personal opinion, that "-ise" is right, at any cost, including objectivity. However, that may be just me failing to assume good faith, and whoever wrote it simply misinterpreted. But...

I guess I need to think about whether stating that a specific output of the OUP uses OUP style is OR, or not [OR]. I had seen it as supportive evidence of or commentary on cited materiel on OUP style itself. Don't know if this is a grey area or not. I agree it is itself "analysis... of published material", but I don't see how it "serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources"; because what OUP style is, is cited, and that the OUP itself adheres to it seems at worst a corollary that it's fair to evidence. But then I do primary (engineering) research and write about it for a living. So my perspective is probably badly skewed.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please explain this edit comment

rm still non-RS - The Militant is a long operating socialist newspaper and even though I do not agree with their politics, that doesn't invalidate them as a source. Also, Doug Jenness isn't on Wikipedia but he has published several books over the years.[6].

still partisan - this is true but these are allowed on BLP under certain constraints.

still attack page - it is critical of him and this also is allowed under constraints on WP:BLP.

still with no unique resource content from BLP - this is where you lose me. Are you saying there needs to be another RS in agreement with the content of the article from '98? Alatari (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Discrimination

I added a new section to the article on Discrimination. To wit:

Drug Use

People who use illegal drugs risk imprisonment, loss of voting rights, and face discrimination in areas of employment, housing, and child custody.

You removed my addition with the explanation, "punishing illegal actions is called enforcing the law, not discriminating."

I wonder if you might yet conceive it possible could I reword it or reframe it to overcome your objections and thus merit inclusion? Danny Sprinkle (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion (Attleboro)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFleischman (talk • contribs) 23:22, 1 November 2013‎ (UTC)

??

Any idea why I got notified you reverted my edit on Abraham Lincoln when as far as I can tell, your edit had nothing to do with mine? VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Actually, the notification was technically correct in a sort of backward way; I originally misread your change and went in with the "undo" button, but when I was in there changed course midstream and made a bunch of other WP:LQ fixes instead. But it looks like in the process, I chose to leave the other full stop of the pair you were originally correcting, so that could partially explain the notification too. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Stephen M. Ross

Sir, If you insert Mr. Ross's biographical information here, it says he is a registered Democrat. However there is no URL to be cited. https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/voterSearch.aspx Kind regards, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterZumthor (talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but if there are no secondary sources stating this, inclusion would be inappropriate according to WP:BLPPRIMARY. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Column width as per resoulution

Hello, Fat&Happy. You have new messages at Diptanshu.D's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Diptanshu^Talk 16:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chris Christie may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |religion = [[Roman Catholic]]<ref>Kelly, Mike (April 2, 2012). ([http://www.northjersey.com/news/Christie_discusses_trade_links_balancing_budgets_with_Israeli_

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

PPACA edit war

Hey, I just to let you know, even though I reverted your recent proposal I still appreciate your effort to look for common ground. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello Fat&Happy,

I was reprimanded for starting a "revert war" and told to use the "Talk" section before revering. You did not do that. Why? You did not contact me to discuss your concerns with my contribution. Why? You are not being honest. Why?

If Wikipedia allows the blind parroting of "Oswald assassinated JFK", it is doing a great disservice to the reader who has a right to be informed. Not disinformed. Your reverting my justifiable contribution could be considered disinformation, something a true Wikipedian should loathe.

50 years after the incident, as you should know (and I'm quite surprised that apparently you and other contributers here don't), much information has come to light which points to the fact that Oswald did not assassinate JFK. We may never know what role he played exactly. However, it is (or should be) clear now that the statement "Oswald assassinated JFK" is a deceptive untruth.

Please be aware that I have formally asked for mediation to resolve this issue.

Thank you.

4eyes (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)4eyes

Quick Hello

Greetings my friend! I don't suppose that WK is a place for socializing but to hell with that policy for just a moment. The GG p. has been stable for several months now which is gratifying. I still wander around the WK ecosystem but visit GG less frequently. So I just wanted to say hello, I miss you, and I hope you're continuing to make the great contributions you have made to WK over several years. Feel free to say hi on my blank talk p. as you see fit. Take care, your pal cfb--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Still around. And a happy thanksgiving to you. Thanks for your message. What articles are you most involved with now?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Generally, nothing in particular; just sort of whatever pops up. This particular weekend, of course, there's been a lot of activity on related articles.

Still haven't found another classic film star article that needs work? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Detroit Race Riot (1943) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• work next to a nigger."<ref>[http://www.detroits-great-rebellion.com/Detroit---1943.html]</ref>}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

gg detail

Glad the GG p. is still on your watchlist. Jersey City? Hmmm. Hope you had a nice thanksgiving. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm writing it off to local (or regional) boosterism of a strange sort; the IP address it was posted from shows as being from the north Jersey area. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Common Core Input

Greetings, Would you be willing to provide input on a dispute at Talk:Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative#Discussion_on_parentheticals_versus_longer_statements? It doesn't appear that you've edited this article previously and might be considered a neutral party. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I read the section you linked (as well as the following one), but I'm not too familiar with the whole core standards issue. My initial inclination is to prefer elimination of the parentheses (in part because I recall them being deprecated as not encyclopedic in running text someplace in the MoS that I can't pinpoint at the moment). And on first glance, it seems an oversimplification to treat the issue as purely binary; if a proposed Constitutional amendment to, say, revoke the Second Amendment had been approved by 24 Democratic-controlled legislatures, but Republicans had later gained control of 10 of these and vowed to repeal the ratification, simply listing the 24 as "ratified" would give an extremely misleading picture. I see the current case as somewhat similar. But I'm withholding posting to the talk page until I get a chance to look over the whole article a bit more. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I think a more appropriate analogy might be if 45 states separately pass the same law. Then, at a later time, some of the states introduce bills to overturn the law, without actually passing them yet. Some other states delay execution of the law. In any case, in the interest of fairness, I'll defer discussion to the Talk page. I'm obviously willing to accept your opinion on the issue.CFredkin (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, analogies aren't always my strong point; sometimes I'm happy with one, sometimes not. In this case, nothing really good came to mind, so I was just playing around a little. I'm going to be a bit tied up until early next week, and may not have full internet service all the time, but I'll still try to look at it again (and I'm flagging the thread this time to delay archiving a while). Fat&Happy (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your omission on my paragraph under article "Westboro Baptist Church" under section "Counter protest"

Dear Fat&Happy. I tried to make an edit to the article, which you stated was poorly written. I have attempted to write a new paragraph to try and clarify it. As well you mentioned that I cited poor sources. Upon reviewing the huffington post sources. I concur. I have since added sources from the News corporation "ABC" and will look for other such sources. Does this conform to your desired quality of writing. Please advice. (note this above paragraph is not meant as jest, it is an honest inquiry for advice). May you please explain where I went wrong in my first draft. Also, if you can refrain from just deleting editor's articles before they have a chance to edit the drafts this would serve the interests of our community if us greenhorn writers be given the chance to learn from our mistakes. Of course under mature writer's such as yourself. Again my apologizes if this comes across as a rebuke which is not my intention.

Here is a copy of the new paragraph detailing the so called 'post humourous gay rituals' over the grave of the mother of Fred Phelps: Again it is intended to be a draft, as I am most willing and happy to learn from you. In short I wish to be a better Wikipedia journalist.

(New revised edition to the one you deleted. I concur, that edition lacked descriptive adjectives and adverbs and other such descriptive articles of writing). Sources 175 and 176, are from ABC news.

On July 14, 2013, Members of a Satanic sect called the "Satanic Temple" preformed 'pink mass' rituals over the grave of Catherine Idalette Johnson the mother of Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) founder Pastor Fred Phelps. According to Lucien Graves, the church member who preformed the rituals, the ordinances post-humorously transformed the sexual orientation of Johnson from that of heterosexual to homosexual.[175] The ritual was preformed twice as both a lesbian and gay couple were represented. Afterwards, Graves desecrated Johnson's gravestone by exposing his gentiles to the stone.[176] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 December 2013‎ (UTC)

False claims

Please stop falsely accusing me of disrupting or vandalizing articles when all I did was make coding text more concise and cleaner. There is no need whatsoever for slashes in "br" things, so stop using "disruptive" or "vandalism" as excuses to revert me. Quite frankly, your insistence on having those slashes is irrational. They function perfectly fine without slashes. Not sure why syntax highlighter says otherwise, but it is mistaken. "br" without slash is a perfectly valid code. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue, if you had made any effort to find out, is not that Syntax Highlighter "says otherwise". That is not the function of the tool. Syntax Highlighter simply does not perform its designed function correctly unless the terminators are present. It's in the documentation. Since the tool is officially supplied in its current form as an editing aid, your insistence on removing the infinitesimal number of additional HTML bytes needed to allow it to work correctly seems like a rather irrational attempt to obstruct the use of a wiki-supplied aid, and as such constitutes vandalism. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:00,v 17 December 2013 (UTC)

More recent HTML allows for it to be without slashes, so Syntax highlighter needs to be updated. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I also find it irritating that the absence of a </small> at the end of a paragraph causes it to malfunction for the rest of the article. But it can be useful, and is sanctioned for use in its current form; you have no valid reason for incapacitating it by removal of small bits of otherwise harmless HTML. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I do have a valid reason- if an article contains numerous "br" tags, then including slashes in them takes up more space than needed. This is why it is more concise to not have slashes. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop this rather idiotic edit war. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk on your user page

Have you seen this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw it at the time, but didn't have time to respond then or for the next few days. I meant to move it here, but apparently forgot. IIRC, there was a similar post on the article talk page, so I figured it could be handled by one of the several editors who watch that article, but if I get a chance I'll take another look. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A joint inquiry

To Fat&Happy and XXSNUGGUMSXX:
Is either of you able to point to any requirement at Wikipedia to support your position on the specific form of the line-break coding element -- that is, the presence or absence of the slant?
If not, is either of you able to point to any technical reason for which either form is mandatory or better than the other?
If either of you can do so, please do.
If neither of you can do so, then is this question not a matter of personal preference?
If that is true, by what right does either of you seek to impose your personal preference on the other and on the rest of the world?
If one position is correct, and the other is not, then please inform the rest of us, so that we can know – so that we can benefit from your wisdom and knowledge.
In any event, by what authority does either of you hurl those insulting labels – "disruption" and "vandalism" – at each other?
Best wishes to all,
Doc. DocRushing (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think my position was fairly well laid out above. I have no personal preference as to whether the slashes are used or not. For some reason, I developed the habit of including them in <br /> commands and excluding them in <p> commands where they are similarly optional (but stopped omitting them from the <p /> command when I found out about the highlighter issue). I do have a preference for not interfering with the proper functioning of WikiMedia supported tools. Whether the Dot's Syntax Highlighter could be improved or updated is not the question; it's a useful tool still offered to all registered editors on the Preferences → Gadgets page. There seems no good reason to continually remove valid code when the removal breaks the tool, just for the sake of saving a dozen or so bytes in a large article. And yes, making edits with the purpose of causing a WikiMedia editing tool to fail seems like a clear case of vandalism. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The intent was certainly not to cause malfunction or fail, though. The tool is flawed and needs improvement/updates. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Right. And since the tool does not meet your standards of perfection, you'll modify articles to exploit its weaknesses so no other editors can use its functionality until you're happy with it. Undoubtedly the dictionary definition of a collegial approach. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Pixel problem

Dear F & H - I'm in the process of posting a major edit to Texas Annexation. Can you visit the site and tell what is wrong with the pixel issue on the double image of Calhoun and Upshur. I can't get them to match. Help! 36hourblock (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I made a temporary change (as noted in the edit summary). I see two possible next steps:

1. reduce the current images a bit by making Upshur, say, 150 wide and Calhoun around 166 or 167;
2. restore the original, cropped, Calhoun image at 200 wide and then download the Upshur image and use an image editor to change it to 200 pixels wide by whatever the editor chooses as the correct proportional height (probably ~333), then crop the bottom enough to make the result about 254–255 high and upload as a new variant image. This would be my preferred solution (seriously, their chests and stomachs don't add much), but I'm not all that good at jumping through the hoops needed to upload images to Wikipedia and I'm really tied up with some things IRL right now, or else I'd give it a shot. (I certainly have time to answer questions, though, but I may not see them as quickly as I have in the past...). Fat&Happy (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You are a prince! But I won't risk overdrawing on my "ask a favor" account. Kind regards, as always. 36hourblock (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Information about Edit warring

Hi Fat&Happy I just wanted to caution you that you were engaged in an Edit War with Scott Illini. Remember if you violate the 3RR you can be blocked from editing. If you seem to disagree with an editor please discuss the edit on the article Talk page or that users Talk page. I'm just giving you a friendly reminder. Etineskid(talk) 02:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

Happy New Year! Here's to another year of your endlessand important work on Wiki.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And the same to you. Just the other day I was thinking about you and the fact I hadn't seen any posts by you in quite a while. Hope all is well and you had a good Christmas and New Year's. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul Newman

There is a discussion at Talk:Paul Newman#Contentious edit regarding Newman's mother which you may be interested in contributing to.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)