Jump to content

User talk:General Ization/Archive 1

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

Santa Monica Tragedy

What can be done about the ethnic crap by User:Redhanker? I have no problem with putting something like that in the article IF it is totally proven. Should he be reported to the Admin's? He has definitely broke the warring rules by putting opinion in a fact article again and again. Kennvido (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I am a relatively newbie, unseasoned editor (esp. on anything controversial as this) and certainly not an admin, so I am uncomfortable taking any action or strong position (and not sure how to compel compliance anyway). WWGB seems cranky (my impression) but mostly reasonable and I assume has capabilities/influence I lack to bring it to a stop. Dwpaul (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I tend to think the cite of the TAM reaction may be factual and important enough that it was worth keeping (and apparently WWGB thought so to, as WWGB did not rm it). But the other stuff is I think both unrelated to the article's purpose and provocative.Dwpaul (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, WWGB is cranky at times. I know how to report, but I really don't want to do that. I will hope an admin sees our complaints and takes note of the constant changes by Redhanker and does something about it. All you and I can do is keep taking the ethnic crap down, so let's do that UNTIL it is proven. Sound like a plan? Check what I asked him nicely and maybe comment on the User talk:Redhanker 41 Edit Warring on the Santa Monica Shooting page. Kennvido (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
You got it, but: I may not immediately remove something I see even if my gut reaction is it should go, out of deference to those with more experience with Wiki policy and procedure. I'm more likely to play a supporting role by validating/defending your and/or others' actions against this kind of abuse in Talk. (To your edit: Yup, like that.) Dwpaul (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
What's not proven? We have some pundits who think he is a terrorist. Debbie Schlussel is notable enough to have her own wiki article, the wiki definition of notable. We have police who think he is not connected to terrorists. It's a fact his family is from Lebanon, CNN and LA Times have this, so why not Wikipedia? It's also fact that Lebanon is not just any peaceful country but home to a number of terrorist organizations and torn by conflict. Yes it is clear some editors have an agenda, but it's not about getting the facts out, but hiding fairly obvious things. The elephant in the room is that it looks like this violence may be related to the Arab / Israeli conflict which is based solidly on ethnic ties, and can't be discussed as if ethnicity and religion had nothing to do with mideast violence, a war isn't just a lot of people who suddenly go on a shooting spree because their parents did not get along, but that seems to be the only politically correct explanation for the shootings. As long as points of view are balanced to reflect all notable views, there should not be need to delete one view and promote only another. Redhanker (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
It may seem to you (and some others) obvious and inevitable that Zawahri's actions will be shown to be motivated by something other than his mental illness and/or familial resentments or conflicts -- but until it IS shown by some kind of evidence reported by some reliable source, not just hypothesized, it doesn't belong in a factually based article. Period. Dwpaul (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of David Yost (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on David Yost (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 "Click here to 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. Boleyn (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Alas I can find no "button labelled 'Click here to contest this speedy deletion'" (nor anything similar) at David Yost (disambiguation). (Perhaps the template you are using needs modification/updating?) The notice there says only to remove the notice if doesn't meet the criteria, but clearly we disagree. Kindly advise the correct procedure.
  • I do not think that there is a "primary" among the two pages that were being disambiguated (the first criterion) prior to your change to a hatnote at David Yost pointing directly to Dave Yost, and there are other notable David Yosts (e.g. former Assistant Head Coach at the University of Missouri[1][2]), just not ones with WP pages (but that could happen at a moment's notice). One of the subjects (the one unfound if you search by his legal name) is likely to become even more notable in an upcoming contested state election. Hence a DAB page seemed the appropriate solution. Dwpaul (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I suppose the better solution would be for the existing article David Yost to move to David Harold Yost, since that is the actual name used in the lede of the article, and for the DAB page to be created at David Yost -- but this seemed a bit more than necessary until there is actually a third (at least) David Yost to be disambiguated. My main purpose was just to support the { {other people} } tag on the extant two articles but to not require their updating when or if there is a third. Dwpaul (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If neither of the two meanings is primary, then a normal disambiguation page is used at the base name. per WP:MOSDAB Dwpaul (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • [Original edit at Talk for dab page] See also [[3]]: [I]f an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name. In this case we are referring to two different people of equal (or equally limited) notability (unlike, e.g., Einstein), and neither is the primary topic to link to with hatnotes versus using disambiguation. Dwpaul (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dwpaul. This is the template used on Twinkle. Like a prod notice, you simply go to edit page and then remove the deletion notice. Then I / any other editor could leave it, or see what is decided in an AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of David Yost (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Yost (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Yost (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Gag

Any thoughts about this link? It confirms that the judge said there was no gag order. Innnncidennnnntallllly, I generally agree that a person cannot become "un-famous", which is why I don't object to the victim's name in the footnotes. Our disagreement is only about emphasis.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press seems reliable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Definitely looks better. Think good that it has been partially redacted (don't think the other was), and it has the Court's seal on it. I assume some journalistic integrity attaches to this site, who knows if any at the other one. Should probably keep looking for it on the court site if there is one, but yeah, I could better live with this as a citation. Thanks. Dwpaul (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem about RS/N, but I expect payback.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'm not giving any legal advice here, but probably the most pertinent case is Oklahoma Publishing v. District Court, 430 U.S. 308 (1977).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been distracted. And thanks. Not a lawyer, but I actually love reading this stuff. Probably some classification in DSM-IV applies. Dwpaul (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of delay, should one of us close the Dietrich discussion at BLPN? How do we get the article moved back?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant:See WP:REQMOVE already pending here[5], initiated by GRuban on 24 September. Dwpaul (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I guess we'll let that request sit a while longer (before we riot). It would still be nice if an admin would formally close the BLPN discussion, with a summary of the result. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Referral to my Talk page

I hope this is how you want me to handle this. Activist (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Westgate

You will have noticed that I have once again reverted your change to the above article. Let me explain that the quote originally stated: "If you want Kenya in peace, it will not happen as long as your boys are in our lands". I substituted "Somalia" for "our lands", and put "Somalia" in square brackets as given by WP:QUOTE#Format, thus the square brackets you see follow a universal convention, and are not an attempt to wikilink "Somalia". Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 07:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: Ah, thanks for the explanation. Sorry to have persisted in my misunderstanding and for additional work. Dwpaul (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lorde (September 30)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC David S. Yost was accepted

David S. Yost, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Jprg1966 (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Joellen Riley

Thank you for your notification. There is no intent to defame, and the conclusions and observations drawn from the cited quotations by Professor Riley arise fairly from them even if they are unfavourable. However, I do take your point that Wikipedia is not an editorial forum and should not be used for editorial purposes. No further edits will be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.S. Juvenal (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@J.S. Juvenal: You are free encouraged to add links to discussion of Professor Riley, including controversy, published in reliable sources, and even to summarize those criticisms (with inline attribution) in the article. But you should not be speaking in your voice ("intervention appeared" [to whom?], "view seemed to be" [to whom?], "It is unclear" [to whom?], "Somewhat curiously" [to whom?], "The point is" [whose?]) or the "editorial" voice on a Wikipedia page. Above all, neutral point of view must be maintained as one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Dwpaul Talk 15:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
@Dwpaul: Thank you for this advice. I clearly see from the examples you give that my editing did not conform to the requisite neutral voice. I don't know if it amounted to being defamatory, though - I have no knowledge of defamation or of law for that matter, but if the person who raised concerns about the edits is a law colleague of Professor Riley's, then I suppose he or she knows what they're talking about, though I'm not sure he or she can be totally objective either given their association with Riley and the university - whereas I have associations with neither. As for being a "hatchet job", I wonder if that same description applies equally to Professor Riley's published treatment of the NTEU? Whatever the case may be, I appreciate your point that Wikipedia is not the forum to pursue controversies, other than to describe or summarise them in a wholly neutral and balanced way. I can see why it was legitimate for the person who raised this issue to be concerned about the lack of balance.J.S. Juvenal (talk • contribs)J.S. Juvenal (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Appreciate your gracious reply and your having taken the time to better understand Wikipedia's policies. Dwpaul Talk 02:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You may wish to respond here David in DC (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Mandela Day

What's wrong with it? It's sorting the Nelson Mandela category, where things named after the man are called "Nelson Mandela" or "Mandela", thus is not properly sorted, as most items would end up under N, or M. This is the day commemorating him, so should sort under "Day" as the sort key. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Have already replied on your talk page. Dwpaul Talk 18:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a sort key, you won't see only "Day" ever. It's a category sort key, not a hyperlink label. Everything in a category appears with the article's full title, not just the sort key. The sort key organizes where in the category listing it appears. Just as sort keys are used to do "Mandela, Nelson". Or if you have say 'Company X Headquarters' in 'category:Company X', you would use the sort key "Headquarters", so it would appear under "H" and say "Company X Headquarters" in 'Category:Company X'; Using "Day" as the sort key will appear under "D" in "Category: Nelson Mandela". This is why the article Nelson Mandela uses the sort key " " ("Category: Nelson Manela| ") per my edit request to do that at talk:Nelson Mandela#Category:Nelson Mandela. It did not make it appear as a blank space, it's only a sort key. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the reversion. I'm removing the warning now. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

sorry got mad with project farm boy01 (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hi Dwpaul.I am Naynaysissom iwas just wondering how to get to sandbox and what sandbox will allow me to do exactly.Thanks,Naynaysissom.p.s.you know how to replay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naynaysissom (talk • contribs) 04:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dwpaul could you help me.I do not know how to use sandbox and i would like to know what sandbox would allow me to do.Thanks Naynaysissom.December 7,2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naynaysissom (talk • contribs) 04:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

LungiMayte

It was fairly obvious from the first edit that LungiMayte was trying to create a redirect and didn't know how. From there it spiraled out of control because no one looked at what was going on, they just saw the page blanking. Now he's at a level 3 warning for no good reason. I've let him know how to do redirects. It might be a good idea to reduce to a level 1 warning message, all things considered. Just a heads up. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dialer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Access code (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) 09:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi General Ization/Archive 1. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! John Reaves 22:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Prop 37

I'm so embarrassed. I guess I was thinking of the recent Prop 522 vote in Washington. It's impressive how quickly you caught the error. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandma Nettie (talk • contribs) 04:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Josh3580

Thanks for having my back. Sometimes my patrolling makes me worry about the state of society, until the forces for good, like you, arrive. Thanks again! Josh3580talk/hist 00:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the sentiments, even though we're probably both delusional. You're welcome, and hope you'll return the favor after that user's block expires in only 31 hours. ;-) Dwpaul Talk 00:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Harvey Littleton

Harvey Littleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I suppose I have not made changes to the Wiki entry "Harvey Littleton" correctly, judging by your comments in history.

I am a close friend of Harvey's and his family. Someone (unknown) added (and it stuck) the erroneous date of his death. Members of the family and I noticed the error and I, as a neophyte, joined Wikipedia, and made the change to his death date and added the location.

Harvey is well-known in his field, and the family did not want to have false info show up on his Wiki item.

Erle Richards e.erle@ccvn.com

  • @Erle.richards: Erle, I can appreciate that, but we cannot include the corrected date and/or place of death without a citation any more readily than we can the incorrect date. Unless we have a citation to a reliable source that notes Mr. Littleton's passing, his article will not include a date or place of death. Please see this link for information on Wikipedia's policies concerning biographies of living persons (who are presumed to remain living without a reliable source indicating otherwise). If you can supply the name of a local paper where an obit has appeared, we may be able to cite it as a reference. Dwpaul Talk 04:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that after you undid my corrections, that Materialscientist made the corrections, citing a couple of web pages. I'm sorry to have crossed swords with you. I don't know who added the erroneous date of death, but I did not see any source cited. No obituary has been published yet, per the family's wishes.Erle.richards (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I certainly want to thank all who helped get Harvey's death information correct. I certainly have a lot to learn about how to edit a Wikipedia article! Whoever made the first entries not only got the date wrong, but also entered the date in the place of death spot. An obituary is now available at yanceyfuneralservice dot com Erle.richards (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You did fine; this sort of thing (both technically and policy-wise) is not always intuitive on Wikipedia. Respect to you for your dedication to your friend and colleague, Mr. Littleton. Dwpaul Talk 21:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Empty forest declined

I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Empty forest under CSD A10. While poaching is a factor in Empty forest syndrome, it is not the only factor, as the given source indicates. Human development and encroachment also play a factor. Thus, it is not a duplicate of Poaching. If you wish to pursue deletion, please use Articles for Deletion instead. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

RE: Will Stewart United States Senator of North Carolina in 2014

I have no reason to believe that my edit is anything other then a reliable verifiable source. I also don't have any reason to believe that stating facts are posting the fact of my declaration of intent to run is in anyway a conflict of interest. I believe that my edits fall completely in line with your sourcing rules. While I do respect the fact my blog is not reputable, I am Going to run for senate.Therefore my source is factual and unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William.C.Stewart (talk • contribs) 03:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please learn how to sign your posts here. Read the detailed information at the links I placed on your user page. They clearly explain how your edits violate Wikipedia's policies, and why a personal blog or Web page cannot be used as a citation. Also, if you persist, either without reading the policies or after reading them, in COI editing I will file a report at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (COIN), which will generally result in your being blocked from editing. Dwpaul Talk 03:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


Please proceed to report. I am ready to escalate this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William.C.Stewart (talk • contribs) 03:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

I have now understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja Umair Satti (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Dvapar Yuga

Hello Dwpaul

I saw your comment and the fact that you have removed my posting . The logic you have used is that my posting is less than neutral. I do not agree. My comment is no less (or more) neutral than what's already on the page,which I repeat below. In fact as you will see later in the comment , the existing information is false. >>>>>>>> The duty of Sudras is to perform tasks that demand highly physical work. Although their form of labour is different from the other three castes, the Sudras are not discriminated against. In fact Vidura, the famous Prime Minister of Hastinapura was born in the Sudra community and attained the status of a Brahmin due to his wisdom, righteousness and learning. All other three sections namely Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaishya protected Sudras and contributed for their safety and happiness. >>>>>>

Now the facts do NOT bear out that "the Sudras are not discriminated against". In India they were definitely discriminated against historically. In fact they are discriminated against even today, not so much by law as by social custom. The Indian Parliament/ Indian State Legislatures would not have passed laws providing for reservations in employment and education for Scheduled Tribes and Castes had the SC/ ST people not been discriminated against. The passage and implementation of these reservation laws is a complete and comprehensive admission by the Indian Nation state that the Shudras historically suffered discrimination. You can check this with any leading scholar of Indian history or sociology.

So while it may be noncontroversial with the Indian readers / users of Wikipedia (who come mainly from the higher castes) to say that "the Sudras are not discriminated against" it is certainly not the truth... as I said its been acknowledged by the Indian Parliament that there was indeed discrimination. I expect wikipedia to not shy away from the truth even if it is not always convenient.

AjayAjayjo (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Dec 28, 2013

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Wikipedia articles are not the place for you to offer competing theories about the subject of the article. You are free to offer suggestions to improve the article, including ideas regarding coverage of significantly documented alternative viewpoints (not just your own personal ideas), on the Talk page of the article, and even to edit the article to include these alternative viewpoints (with citations to sources that discuss them). However, your edits must always reflect the neutral point of view, and make clear that the alternative view is just that, an alternative. An edit should never begin "I am not sure of the correctness of this interpretation," because you are speaking with your voice, not in the voice of the encyclopedia. That you began your edit this way was the first clue that it was not encyclopedic (though the remainder did not meet the criteria for NPOV as written). Please familiarize yourself with these and other Wikipedia policies if you wish to contribute to articles. Dwpaul Talk 18:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
P.S. - You are welcome to begin an entry on the article's Talk page with the statement you made, and, in fact, that would be the appropriate place to do so. You would be initiating a conversation with other interested editors about the topic, with a goal of improving and expanding the article. However — and this is key — the article itself is not the place to initiate a discussion with other editors or readers of the article; that is what the Talk page is for. Dwpaul Talk 18:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry about that, got editors mixed up. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I understood. That was the intention of the editor who actually made the edit. See their history. Are you an admin (with block)? Dwpaul Talk 08:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Not an admin unfortunately, they had a pretty long run before being blocked. I have removed all the phony welcome messages that link your name, but they will be back. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was expecting that. Thanks for all your work to try to catch up with him until an admin came along, and appreciate your cleanup effort on his vandalistic attempts to implicate me. Dwpaul Talk 09:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

How to add sources on Satti Page because I don't know how to create them although I know enough sources!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocent Historian (talk • contribs) 10:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Anil Kapoor

Hey with all due respect we all know Anil Kapoor sir just turned 57 recently. It's all over media and twitter. He even said it on a interview. So why lie sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamilahmed2 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's "all over media" you should be able to supply at least one reliable source (Twitter is not an RS) to document the correct information and explain the change. We do not chnage biographical information on living persons without citations. Dwpaul Talk 20:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you please search "Anil Kapoor birthdate" in Google. Or read his Early life and Career in his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamilahmed2 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I found the incorrect information was inserted earlier by another user, and recognize now that you were trying to correct it. Please note that the use of a good edit summary on your edits will greatly help to avoid this kind of misunderstanding, since other editors will understand what you are doing. I've fixed the article. Dwpaul Talk 20:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

MckNasty

A lot of what is written about him isn't backed so I'm really stunned your just picking on my edit. I clearly stated a fact - he is married to a popstar and has children. Other statements are on his page without any links to "back it up" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesyesyesitsme (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't account for all the other things in the article without proper sources -- this basically falls under WP:OTHERCRAP. But unsourced biographical and family details cannot stay. See WP:BLP. Nothing personal. Dwpaul Talk 02:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Clementine

Please revert your revertion on Jools Holland or explain how artists appearing on the show are not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyb8 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:notability for Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. In general, such claims must be supported by reliable sources. Just saying that someone appeared on a TV show neither means it is true nor that they are notable. Dwpaul Talk 08:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that he appeared on the show, someone else did. Anyway if this doesn't statisfy you nothing will http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006ml0l — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyb8 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, OK, I have reverted my reversion on List of Later... with Jools Holland episodes. But the problem (and the reason I reverted on the Jools page to begin with) is that the article you created on BC doesn't contain enough content/references/anything to explain why the subject is notable and ensure that it will stick around. By every policy of Wikipedia concerning new articles, citation and notability, the page should and will probably be deleted speedily. So the Jools page will probably have a redlink where your article should be. Dwpaul Talk 09:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, but I don't want to spend more time editing the page if it's going to be deleted in an hour Pyb8 (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy tag and added a reference to the BBC and a reference to The Guardian. Please do not nominate pages for speedy deletion (unless they are legal problems with them existing such as G10 - attack page or G12 - blatant copyvio) mere minutes after they have been created without doing due diligence yourself for sources. A google search for his name would have led you to these two sources. You may be interested in the historical WP:NEWT project. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Dwpaul Talk 15:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It could be worse - you could have made this edit! ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Ha! Dwpaul Talk 18:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

At least the human who nominated Twitter waited a week. I also came to yell at you for biting the contributor of Benjamin Clementine, but it looks like it's already been done. Please be maximally respectful of others' contributions. -- Y not? 23:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No biting intended. The discussion ultimately had the needed effect of getting a minimal set of citations added to support the notability of the subject and allow the article (at that point two lines with no citations, already being wikilinked by the editor elsewhere) to remain. I'll be a little less hasty in future, yes, but I think things have worked out pretty well, in part because of the original editor's persistence, quick response and willingness to communicate. I understand not everyone will respond this way. Thanks. Dwpaul Talk 23:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure there was no biting intended - I patrol CSDs regularly and the majority are correct. What I need to ensure now is that Pyb8 hasn't been scared off Wikipedia completely, and his comment of "I don't want to spend more time ... if it's going to be deleted in an hour" gives me concern. As it is, the article has passed a Did you know nomination so should be linked off the front page in a couple of days - that might soothe things over. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the follow-up. Dwpaul Talk 21:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Mary Pinchot Meyer

You're right, I was wrong to not use an edit summary as people can't read my mind. I apologize for being snarky. Have a happy New Year. 199.15.104.149 (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
And me for being too hasty. You too! Dwpaul Talk 01:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_6

Hi, I've moved the Church of the Creator discussion there, since it was started on the 6th, not the 5th. —rybec 06:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new.....article help?

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I was wondering if someone could tell me how to add an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealNeoQueenSerenity (talk • contribs) 04:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections

By the way, thank you for bringing to my attention the grammar conventions of Wikipedia! :) I am just new, and I didn't know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZmanAug (talk • contribs) 04:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's OK ... the rules here for grammar and formatting are a little different in some respects than conventional English grammar (e.g., punctuation often goes outside the quotes!) -- but there are actually good reasons for them. Enjoy ... Dwpaul Talk 04:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

HGP Michael Griffin

Holy Ghost Preparatory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:71.185.6.7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

the school's publicity is not hurting administrators, it is hurting students. alums are promising not to give aid and the result is less scholarships, less financial aid. how is that a good thing? griffin as a devoted teacher, devoted yes, in attempting to harm HGP

If the information has been widely reported, it can and should appear in the article. It certainly shouldn't be redacted just because someone at the school would prefer that it not be publicized. See WP:Notability. Frankly, the potential for negative publicity should have been considered before the school took the action it did. Wikipedia has no responsibility to help the school cover up its mistakes, regardless of who might benefit by its doing so. Dwpaul Talk 17:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your deletion Mercer Island High school

Mercer Island High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Terrysg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

deletion is incorrect and i expect you to replace if you Google Terry Gorlick you will find many achievements not listed state of Alaska Board of Architects engineers and Land survey, RJC State of Alaska Chairman, Innovator of Energy saving devices in Alaska as many others, Including bring a 1.5 billion dollar company to Alaska Terrysg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrysg (talk • contribs) 06:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful. It should be quite easy then for you (or actually someone else, as autobiography is strongly discouraged) to prepare an article with plenty of citations of reliable sources that establish your notability per Wikipedia guidelines. Once that is done, the article can be linked to the "Notable alumni" section of another article. Until that time, there is nothing to establish your notability and an added entry in that list will be reverted per the Wikipedia policies already shared with you; repeated attempts to insert it may result in your account being blocked from editing. Dwpaul Talk 17:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance Tag

Dear Dwpaul, Thanks for your advice, best wishes and regards. Aftab Banoori 05:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftabbanoori (talk • contribs)

Iris Chacon changes

Iris Chacón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Junnofaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Dwpaul, this is Junno Faria, Iris Chacon's husband and manager and did some changes on her Wikipedia profile. We don't want wrong information going on this site and need to know if we could lock the page, once we have it updated. Nobody else but us should be able to modify this page on Iris, but us. Thanks for your help on this important matter.

JUNNO FARIA junnofaria@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junnofaria (talk • contribs) 04:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Information Removed

Dear Dwpaul,

It seems the information I recently added in the St. Lucy page has been removed. The page says something like it is incomplete and I can help by expanding it. So I put some info that is in fact real so the people would know.

I would gladly appreciate if you could just please put it back.

Thanks.

--Midnytbloo (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)midnytbloo (01.18.2014)

  • The only change you made in the edit I reverted was to add the single character "•" after "Metro Manila" in the list entry "Sta. Lucia Chapel in Barangay Sta. Lucia, San Juan City, Metro Manila". This change was reverted as it adds no value to the article. Please see User talk:Midnytbloo for more information. Dwpaul Talk 01:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with "db-author" at Nawab Faizunnesa Government Girls' High School

Greetings, with this edit you put up a CSD db-author tag at Nawab Faizunnesa Government Girls' High School. I think that was not advisable, since though User:Vjaasief is the originator, he is not at all the sole contributor, I myself put in substantial effort to bring his article up to snuff, and further he was acting in very poor faith. It would've been displeasing if some admin had come along and rewarded his poor behaviour by deleting the improved and WP-proper version I put the effort into making. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right; I should have done more investigation into other contributions to the article. At that point, I figured I was just calling their bluff, since they were basically proposing (via edit summary) that the article was going to be the way they wanted it or not at all. Particularly given the editor's stunt with moving your user pages (which is what called my attention to their edit summary challenge, and led me to file an ARV), I figured we'd perhaps be better off without both them and the article. Luckily, the admin who reviewed the situation had the presence of mind to consider simply reverting the article to an earlier, more basic state rather than deleting it outright. Thanks for your message, and sorry for any contributions of yours to the article that got lost in the scramble to address the issue. Dwpaul Talk 23:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I already thanked the editors who rescued your earlier version, here. Dwpaul Talk 23:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries, just wanted to check in. Seems to have all worked out for the moment. The other fellow certainly has strong emotions towards my simpler and footnoted version; s/he's kinda missing for the forest for the trees there... MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You left me a message

Not sure if you got my response on my page so I'm posting this here too: sorry, I put information about the season instead in the spot, didn't just erase everything. That's supposed to be about the current season so I put information about the current season there. Feel free to edit.--75.44.145.105 (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I understood your explanation and debated between thanking you for your edit and just leaving you be, decided on the latter. ;-) It just looked the reversion of a lot of sourced content, hence possible vandalism, but once given your summary I better understood. Thanks. Dwpaul Talk 04:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Shouldn't be a reversion of sourced content and if it is its completely unintentional I swear. I just thought that someone should update that since much of it (except the part about episode 20) is completely outdated and no longer important. I figured that part of the article needed to be more like the rest of the season summaries, what was there was fine for before the season aired, but it really needed to be updated. Figured now was a good time to do it since we're about halfway through the season. I actually didn't do it before like I did with season 8 because I couldn't understand where this season was going for such a long time (still kinda confused) with the demon, angel, Gadreel storylines.--75.44.145.105 (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The Promenade Shopping Centre

Nice catch on the sockpuppets, thanks. Ruby Murray 11:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused

Hello, I received a message saying I had an unsubmitted AfC draft at User:Nick/sandbox/2. I'm very confused as this wasn't under the AfC process and I don't think it qualifies for deletion under this criteria for a number of reasons. The article existed before I edited it and did my part in getting it to GA status, it's not been six months since it was last edited (although the most recent edit was vandalism) and I didn't think it was categorised. I have other drafts and I'm concerned these may be deleted too, could you please advise on how to proceed. Many thanks. Nick (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I stumbled across while investigating the user who vandalized it (which I didn't count toward the six months). The template I used for the CSD nom may not have been precisely the right one. If you still need/want it, please feel free to remove the template (I see actually you have already done). I was only proposing it for deletion if it was in fact abandoned. As a suggestion, you may want to make an inconsequential edit of other drafts at least once every six months to protect them from CSD nomination. Thanks. Dwpaul Talk 20:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
And the nom was actually removed by an admin with the notation "not valid CSD-G13 deletion. User must request deletion himself if he wants to delete this", so clearly I wasn't using the correct template anyway. Sorry. Dwpaul Talk 20:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:General_Ization/Archive_1&oldid=1144945838"