This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fourthords, for the period 8 July 2016 – 22 April 2019. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anya's Ghost, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Coloring and Well. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humayun Khan (soldier), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bystander. 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.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. for (;;)(talk)12:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hrm. There was a grand total of nine minutes between this notice and DGG(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA)deleting the article. Had I even been online at 7:55 AM, I don't think nine minutes would have been enough time for me to contest the deletion. I felt it had enough context to constitute a stub, but apparently the unknown editor and DGG felt otherwise. I'll recreate it at another time. — fourthords | =Λ= |14:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I've moved the article to Draft:Kewaunee Fabrications so you can work on it further. I trust you have good sources, for this is exactly the sort of company where it is difficult to find references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I've never actually commented on an FAC before, so it may take me some time to work up the nerve, but I'll try to get around to it before too long. — fourthords | =Λ= |15:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The copyright holder is "Unknown" (or possibly anonymous). The video is managed and distributed by viralhog.com .. viralhog.com is a service which allows copyright holders to retain the rights to a work but release it anonymously. viralhog.com manages it for you. Thus, if you have a viral image and want to get paid for it, but don't want your home phone crushed with requests from news agencies, you hand it off to viralhog as an agent and they handle it for you, for a fee. -- GreenC03:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Vanjagenije(talk)08:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Fourthords. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey, I'm so sorry for my absence! Due to a series of successive emergencies, I haven't been able to dedicate time to Wikipedia recently. Let me at least get started there right now. — fourthords | =Λ= |21:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Bo Burnham youtube hit count
Hi Fourthords, I just updated Bo Burnham youtube hit count (by creating a brand new wayback archive snapshot as of today) and wonder why you (or someone else, I did not check who first made such edit) set the deadurl=yes. I kept that as it was, but I wonder why it was set to deadurl=yes. I asked this question on Talk:Bo_Burnham#View_counts, so please do answer there. --Rava77 (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Redirect category shell
Thank you, Fourthords, for all your contributions and especially for your help categorizing redirects! I notice that you used the deprecated template {{This is a redirect}} to tag this redirect shortcut. That has been replaced by the {{Redirect category shell}} template. So if you tag redirects with...
I wasn't actually sure what the appropriate protocol for such redirects was, so I just looked at WP:ABBR (which you've since fixed) and copied what was there. Thanks so much for the heads-up! — fourthords | =Λ= |18:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Pleasure! Paine —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 22 February 2017
Be that as it may, it doesn't confer any legitimacy or inherent reliability to the blog. That Sony noticed Mr. Nobleman's blog post, and thought fans of Billy Joel might enjoy it, doesn't mean (and I've found no statements to the contrary at the linked site) that Sony corroborated the post instead of taking it at face value. WP:SPS says, "Anyone can create a personal web page […] For that reason, self-published media, such as […] personal or group blogs […] are largely not acceptable as sources. […] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." — fourthords | =Λ= |20:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
File:Dr Loveless beaker.jpg
Hi Fourthords. Based upon on discussion about non-free images and fictional characters at WT:NFCC, I'm wondering what you think about File:Dr Loveless beaker.jpg. The article Dr. Loveless is basically only citing IMDb, and there actually appears to be a freely licensed photo in the character being used in the article. This is, however, a slightly different situation than being discussed at WT:NFCC because it might be argued that there is something more than the actor's real world appearance being depicted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
As to the images in that article, let's start with the easy one, File:Michael Dunn Richard Kiel Wild Wild West.JPG. The Commons says it's in the public domain, which means we can use it—where appropriate—with abandon. We can even use it on my user talk page! Whooo! Public domain! Now, it's not the greatest image of Michael Dunn as Dr. Loveless to be had, particularly since he's rather overwhelmed in the image by Richard Kiel; but since it's a public-domain image, we're free to copy, crop, transform, or do whatever would best illustrate the smaller character. Heck, I'd run it through a quick crop-and-save myself right now, but I'm at work.
Then there's File:Dr Loveless beaker.jpg. You're absolutely right, there's nothing reliably-sourced in the article to warrant using non-free content, ESPECIALLY since we HAVE a libre image to use in its place! I'd remove it from the article, tag it with {{di-orphaned fair use}}, and let nature run its course.
Then there's the article Dr. Loveless itself. It cites the IMDb, but in none of the "Appropriate uses" at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, so it has effectively been wholly unsourced for it's entire 10+ year history. My off-the-cuff inclination is to redirect it to The Wild Wild West#Villains until such time as sufficient sources arise to create either this article again, or at least a list of The Wild Wild West characters. However, nothing at the parent article about Loveless is sourced either, so it's kinda six-of-one, half-a-dozen of the other. /shrug
I hope some of this has been at least marginally helpful. I tend to be verbose, and I'm not 100% certain I answered your question, so please (PLEASE!) get back to me here if I was unclear or, you know, wrong. :^) — fourthords | =Λ= |15:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed response. I tend to be verbose myself, so I have no problems with such things. Bascially, your response pretty much re-affirmed what I've been thinking. I was going to prod the article, but a redirect might work. As for the non-free image, I was going to tag it with {{rfu}} or {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} because (1) the free image exists (and could be cropped) and (2) this at least gives a more specific reason as to why the file's non-free use is being challenged. I've found that simply removing a problematic file, even when a proper edit sum is added, can occasionally lead to the file simply being added when the uploader notices the {{di-orphaned fair use-notice}} on their user talk without addressing the relative issue.
One thing about reirecting/deleting the article is that the file will become an orphan by default. If the prod/redirect is challenged, then article could be taken to AfD (which again will likely lead to the file becoming an orphan by default). The question is which of the above will is the best course of action to follow in this particular case: try to deal with the file and article together, or independently of each other. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I'd redirect the page as opposed to PRODing it; it has enough pages pointing to it that would become red links which might encourage the page to just be recreated again. Besides, redirecting it keeps the page history, some of which might be useful in the future. Now, you can tag the NFC with a rationale as to why it's not acceptable, and the uploader is still active on the wiki, but if you wind up orphaning the image anyway, it'll just automatically get tagged for deletion by a bot anyway (which one, I don't remember). As for what's the "best" course of action? Hoooo. Um… Probably:
Tag the image with a template explaining clearly (and citing policy) why it's unacceptable.
Don't allow a bot to notify the uploader; sign the notice yourself and be clear, thorough, and open to communication with the uploader.
Post a notice of an intention to redirect at the Dr. Loveless talk page and set a reasonably long deadline for input (I'd say, two weeks).
Now, it could be that you do all of that, receive absolutely zero pushback, and wind up doing what you would have done in the first place, except having spent much more time on it. I've foregone all of these procedural steps before, and received zero, some, and tons of pushback; proceed at your own discretion. :^) — fourthords | =Λ= |16:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, the deal with categories is that you want the most-specific categorization you can manage. The guideline at Wikipedia:Categorization has an example: "each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. 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."
P.S. I added a colon to your original comment; without it, you're not so much linking to the category (which I assume was your intension), but instead categorizing my user talk page. Please take no offense to my edit to your comment.
RE: Disney Junior logo
I have read through your links and still do not understand why this logo is not allowed to be displayed in the Disney Junior Canada article?! Care to explain this Wikipedia rules BS in plain English for me as I don't speak legalese?! Do I have to upload a separate image for that article or will that be deleted as well?! The GateKeeper07 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 9 June 2017
Sure! I don't mind explaining to the best of my ability.
The page Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:NFC) is a content guideline; it is essentially an elaboration of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC), which is "a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations." A consensus interpretation of policy led to a list of 19 examples of unacceptable uses for images; the 19th of which says, "The logo of an entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding. Specific child entity logos remain acceptable." In this instance, Disney Junior is the parent entity, and its different regional and national variants are the child entities, meaning that the Disney Junior logo may only be used for the parent article and not for the others. A public discussion about this file took place for three months between a half-dozen contributors (Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 3#File:Disney Junior Logo.png); as of its administrative closure five months ago, consensus remained unchanged and the result of the discussion was "keep in Disney Junior, remove all other instances."
Thank you, Fourthords, very much for saying that my efforts to improve and expand the article Elijah Daniel successfully demonstrate that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DIFF.
Especially during this trying period of time, I really appreciate your being so willing and kind to acknowledge the hours upon hours of research and writing that I've recently put into this.
Honestly, I didn't even look at the article as it once was. The nominator simply didn't give any actual reason for deletion, so looked at the article (as it was when I looked) to see if there was anything particularly or glaringly obvious as to why. There wasn't such.
Why does the article on Matthew Fenton have your username behind its title? This could have misled Wikipedia readers into thinking it is a userpage, which probably explains why the page does not have any categories.Vorbee (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
What you saw isn't an article; it's technically a userspace draft. Anything that looks like an article, but has a user's name in front of it, is just something the user is keeping in their own sub-space. That user may be working on making it into an article, they may be using it as an example for someone, or many other purposes.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
The problem has been my actually finding the appropriately more-specific stub template. This is something I've tried in the past, but either I can't navigate them well enough, or I choose a template that's not specific enough (or just plain wrong) and somebody comes behind me and replaces mine with a more-specific template anyway. Once upon a time, I was told (though not on my talk page apparently, since I can't find it) that adding {{stub}} to such an article was preferable to adding no stub template or adding the wrong stub template, so that's what I do. Have the official guidelines or whatnot changed since I was last advised? — fourthords | =Λ= |17:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC) P.S. Per your request: I dream of horses
No; I just assume people don't realize that it's actually important to use more specific stub templates if you're able to do so. It seems that it's less work if you, specifically, just use {{stub}}, so you would be an exception. It's just how your brain works, and I and others can/should accommodate that. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your understanding. It occurs to me here-and-now though: I have the same trouble with categorization of articles, but when I need to categorize a new article, I look to other, similar articles and use them as a basis for comparison. On the rare occasion I come across an un-tagged stub, I'll try that approach first. — fourthords | =Λ= |14:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC) P.S. Per your request: I dream of horses
Sounds like a good plan. If a stub article has categories (not all do), I'd also use them; sometimes, if you travel around a bit in the categories the article is in, you'll find a sub-category for stubs. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah that's fine. As an aside, I have long thought that there were probably a significant number of serial killers operating undetected during the war years and immediately afterwards. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey, remember when I said I'd do this on the 31st? I was wrong. I've had seven houseguests since I said that, and I'm just about to hit the hay tonight. I work tomorrow, and I anticipate it being slow, so I'll edit from there and look over the article then. So sorry for dropping the ball on you! — fourthords | =Λ= |02:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you tagged my image for File:Disney Junior.svg for deletion. I am trying to understand what I did wrong, as I specified that it was a logo covered by fair use, so if you have time, I would appreciate if you would get back to me. Thank you and have a good night. JE98 (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's not so much that I tagged it for deletion, but I tagged it as missing it's "non-free use rationale". The short, short version: if a file is fully copyrighted, we need three things to keep and use it. We need a source (in this case, you yourself are the source), we need a license tag (in this case, you've used {{Non-free logo}}, which is probably best), and we need a detailed explanation as to why it's important we use this copyrighted work (many contributors use {{non-free use rationale}}). You're good for 2/3; you just need the explanation (rationale) to be up to snuff.
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 03:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I changed the license on File:Disney Junior.svg, and didn't notice it had been subject to discussion. Sorry for not checking. In essence, all of the components which make up said logo can be found here, because they don't pass the threshold of originality. I don't understand why this one should be any different. Thank you --Ben Stone20:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
If I were coming across that image for the first time, I would do the same. I've just been keeping an eye on that image to keep its use in compliance with WP:NFCC#10c, and as such, I previously came across the discussion I cited. I undid your edit out of my knowledge of that discussion, not my own interpretation or understanding of the case. — fourthords | =Λ= |20:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to tag it as "Possibly free"? After all, unlike general wikipedia matters, copyright questions are not subject to consensus. Quick tip: When replying, add the template {{ping|USERNAME}} in your reply, that way whoever you are replying to gets notified. --Ben Stone22:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I can't find a template for tagging a file as "possibly free", so I can't speak to its propriety.
As for the {{ping}} template, I am aware of it, but decry its existence as obnoxious and a social-mediafication of the encyclopedia to which I contribute. If, for this discussion, you'd prefer I use it rather than watching this page, I've no problem obliging such: @Benstown:. — fourthords | =Λ= |20:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all your feedback. I guess I'll leave it as is. I deal with many files, but it's the first time I've run in to one that has been so well researched! Thanks. --Ben Stone20:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Fourthords. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter Ostrum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Musical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
People keep trying to put copyvio photos of O'Rourke into the infobox. Maybe your idea of a photo from Poltergeist III wasn't such s bad idea... Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh-ho, sorry there Mr. Austin, but I washed my hands of that article a while ago. It became contentious and dramatic to edit there, so I backed away. HOWever, since I have you here, I wanted to let you know that I've not been dawdling on the Heather Rich article you requested. I have two or three long-form video sources that I want to review for the article, but I predict my re-write to come live within the week. Actually, perhaps even tomorrow—I have the day off work for a local holiday! — fourthords | =Λ= |17:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
It took me seven-and-a-half months to polish the Heather Rich article, but if you're not in a rush, I'll put Andersen on my place. — fourthords | =Λ= |14:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
There are no restrictions on accessibility in draftspace; if a merge is intended, that can just as well be done using draft sources as mainspace sources. And we can't have two versions of the same article live at the same time, one with a weird "/draft" rider. Please leave in draftspace. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
(a) I'm not familiar with the draftspace. (b) Kieronoldham (talk·contribs) intends to merge my draft version with their own efforts. (c) What I wrote was never in the draftspace; it was in my userspace, and I moved it so that Kieronoldham could edit it if they liked. — fourthords | =Λ= |17:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I am puzzled by some of the edits you made to my copy edit of the article Bridgette Andersen. The Findagrave citation provided the exact date of birth and death. Apparently The Havre News citation is incomplete at best and may be a dead link. What's the problem with accurate detail? It's normal practice to provide dob and dod whenever possible.
It's pretty obvious from reading the text why the "Clarify" tag was added. I hope you'll agree with my amended tag. I had already advised the individual who requested the copy edit of the issue on their talk page when I finished the copy edit.
The citation to Havre Daily News gives the source, date, and page of a newspaper. It's not a dead link because it doesn't link to a website. Your duplicate citation linked to a third-party site that charges for access to the periodical, which doesn't lend any further credibility to the source than not. There's nothing wrong with accurate detail, of course, but it must be accompanied by citations to reliable sources.
As to your {{clarify}} tag, I'm concerned you're only reading the article through code and missing how it's actually written. If we delete the citations from the sentence in question, it reads, "Writer and co-star Mark Miller was inspired by—and wrote the part for—his daughter, Savannah Miller." Does that read correctly for you? Mr. Miller was (a) inspired by and (b) wrote the part for: Savannah Miller, his daughter. Does that need further clarification? — fourthords | =Λ= |23:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
P.S. This might have been more appropriate at Talk:Bridgette Andersen; I'm going to leave a pointer there.
I was unaware that Findagrave was an unacceptable site. The position of the citation in the section where the text was uncler is what threw me off. I've fixed it as you suggested. Now it makes perfect sense. Thanks for clarifying. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The only problem with moving that citation is that it's specifically for the text preceding it, but it doesn't verify the fact that the part was written for his daughter. It only verifies that it was inspired by his daughter. It's the "1982-05-16 The Oklahoman" reference that verifies the part was written for her to perform. I've slid that citation tag backwards a bit to cover the facts duly. — fourthords | =Λ= |17:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I see you changed my Discover edit from today. I'd like to understand your reasoning. I had added DIS and DISCO, as both are in wide use, I think the list should reflect all current abb used for the show.
You're talking about my edit here at Template:Star Trek abbreviations, yeah? That template's purpose isn't to document any particular group's abbreviation. That template is used here just to provide a key for the tables displaying Trek information. We only use DSC in those tables, so we only need to list that one abbreviation in the key. Does that make sense? — fourthords | =Λ= |20:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Fourthords. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thank you for uploading File:62 AW English.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
February 2019: Monica Witt--"Under construction" template removed
Hi, Fourthords. In accordance with the template message's wording, I just removed it from the above article. Please feel free to replace it if needed.
PS: I can't help but "sense" that Witt may be a triple agent. Thoughts? Also, that august publication, the Daily Mail, gave a motivation for her defection as being her disgust at the pervasive sexual harrassment of women by men in the Air Force. Did you read any hints of this in other sources?--Quisqualis (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
In my edit of 17:15, 14 February 2019, I removed (1a) the {{under construction}} template, (1b) specific months of service which are disputed by the sources, and (1c) a claim of top-secret clearance that wasn't supported by the source ("2019-02-13 BBC"). Which of these shouldn't I have removed?In my edit of 22:32, 15 February 2019, I removed (2a) the image that's up for deletion, (2b) an unsourced claim for Witt's birth name, (2c) employer notes from the infobox IAW that template's documentation, (2d) installations from the unit designations parameter, (2e) a claim of the "Afghanistan War" which is unsourced in the article, (2f) a straggling sentence about Witt's nickname (which was moved to the infobox), (2g) an entire section dedicated to three images, and (2h) categories not sourced in the article. Which of these shouldn't I have removed?In my edit of 05:38, 18 February 2019, I removed (3a) the image that's up for deletion, and (3b) categories not sourced in the article. Which of these shouldn't I have removed? — fourthords | =Λ= |05:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The benefit to using {{AUD}} though, is, when the necessary databases are finally updated, the article will automatically update to a more-recent datum. — fourthords | =Λ= |14:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
