User talk:John "Hannibal" Smith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Nicolas Bacri

Dear Sir,

thank you for contacting me. Yes, I believe you made a mistake in not let me modify the bio about me. i am the composer and i would like to add some useful text to what already exist which is very poor. can you let me do this ? Thank you best wishes Nicolas Bacri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.3.110 (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

We have no way to verify that you are who you say you are. It may be true, but it may not be. Either way, you need to use legitimate sources and cite them like every one else. I recommend that you create an account, and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. RSTech1 (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not only was the text which the IP claiming to be Nicolas Bacri has repeatedly inserted promotional and unreferenced, it is a copyright violation from nicolasbacri.net. Future attempts to restore it will be reverted immediately. Voceditenore (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you. RSTech1 (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

please help me

i have correct information but due to poor english i can not express true information so please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniruddhbhaidhadhal (talk • contribs) 06:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Multiple editors have been trying to help you. You need to visit the links that other editors and I have been giving you. You need to learn the basics of Wikipedia. If you are not fluent in English, then you should not be posting major edits to articles written in English, just like I should not write articles in languages where I am not fluent. What you can do is write articles in languages you are fluent in, or write a draft of your proposed edits on the Talk Page of the article that is in English (with proper sources per WP:CITE!), with a note to other editors. Let them know that your English isn't fluent enough to write final drafts, and ask for their help. Other editors can polish up the text, or provide advice and revisions. People will be happy to help. But you have to help yourself first. When you don't heed the warnings being posted to your Talk Page, it doesn't seem like you are getting the point. When you engage in edit warring with other editors, that does not seem like good faith. You need to stop these types of behaviors. As I mentioned, spend time learning the basics, and take it step by step from there. There are plenty of resources here to help you...but you have actually use them. RSTech1 (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Kuala Lumpur International Airport

Both Air Mauritius and Ethiopian Airlines do not have traffic rights to carry passengers from Kuala Lumpur and Singapore as the ref for ET SIN state so. Also, MK can't sell tickets on the KUL-SIN segment per their website. Therefore they cannot be listed as destinations. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Whether the info was correct or not, is irrelevant. The issue was that you are making edits without providing sources. Per WP:CITE. As I've already noted in the warning on your Talk Page (which I see you deleted), please do not continue to make edits without citing proper sources. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all, and information here is not based on editor opinion or personal knowledge. Information posted is to be verifiable by any third party, and must be based on reliable sources. Per WP:RS. Sidenote: What you are doing by reverting the edits of other editors, based on your own opinion/knowledge, and not sources, is called "Edit warring", and is a quick way to get yourself banned. Per WP:WAR. I would recommend that you stop. RSTech1 (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

James Franco

I didn't cite a new source because I didn't add new information, I just cleaned up the writing and citing being done already. The "Personal Life" section in question is using a single Playboy Interview w/ Franco himself to color a story with unconfirmed or irrelevant detail.

For example: "The rumors concerning his sexuality led to a Gawker article..." That's false causality; the rumors of his sexuality and the supposed incident in question are not directly related, so I changed it to, "In 2008, gossip blog Gawker published an article..." "However, Gawker refused to take their article down as they were simply reporting what another outlet published and instead offered him a chance to make a comment about the speculation on its website. He declined, hoping it would die down." This is superfluous information, somewhat of a jump in logic drawn from the interview, and frankly, a couple of poorly written sentences, so I removed them.

You're introducing POV and making an executive decision about the topic. When it's a controversial topic, discuss on the Talk Page, and come to consensus with other editors. The points you're making are not up to you alone (or any single editor) to make. Personally, I don't care what his sexuality is. That isn't the point. Please become familiar with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Removing information has the same weight as adding it, so using the argument that you're just removing "false" information doesn't suffice. You still need to provide sources. For example, provide sources to refute what you believe is false, and justify that you are correct in removing that info. WP:CITE The previously accepted edits did provide sources (even if it's only one), and now you're removing that info, based on zero sources. That isn't how it works. That's also why it's important to discuss with other editors and come to consensus. Also, please remember to sign your comments. RSTech1 (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right about point two, wrong about point one. I made a subjective sentence more objective. I don't care enough to fight for it, keep it the bad way if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.48.248.139 (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Look, I'm just here to help. I'm not saying you should not make the edit. I'm not even saying you're wrong. I'm just pointing out that requirements for WP:BLP edits are strict. If you feel you are correct, you simply need to back it up with reliable sources, per WP:RS and WP:CITE. Regarding POV, it's not an insult, so don't take what I said personally. Every single one of us has our own perspective, so even when we feel we are being neutral, and we bring some amount of bias into everything we do, that's why we have to be aware of WP:NPOV. RSTech1 (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit of my work and comment on my Talk page.

Hi thanks for your recent comment to my talk page, Re my edit of the Jessica Gomes page. I appreciate your comment is correct for my 2nd edit as I didn't provide a reference. However, the first edit I made was simply a moving of words from one section to another. As such I find your undo of this unwarranted. Please also remember the Good Faith principle that Wikipedia has when commenting on others talk pages and don't assume vandalism. GARM (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi GARM. Please review and become familiar with WP:BLP. For biographical articles, you need to have good reasons for edits. It can't just be arbitrary, or because you think it will be "better". If in doubt, leave it alone for the time being or discuss it on the Talk Page with other editors. The reason I rolled back both, is that you didn't really provide sufficient reason for making either edit, and without a good reason, moving text around didn't significantly add to the article. When you're new, you're going to receive a lot of criticism on your edits. Don't take it personally. Nowhere did I say it was vandalism. WP:AGF works both ways...don't assume another editor's revert of your work is personal or an attack. I didn't say anything negative about you. Those are stock warnings from the Wikipedia system that are designed to help editors make more accurate edits. You may feel it was unwarranted, but it's not about either of our personal opinions. I was pointing out that there were certain guidelines you need to become more familiar with. Another editor rolled back your edits as well for the same reasons I did. You should be willing to listen to critiques from others, and consider that information, in order to become a better editor. RSTech1 (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I am picking up personal opinion does play a role. My change moved personal information about Jessicas family, the sentence about how many brothers and sisters she has from the modeling career section to the personal section, along with the reference. And I provided reason in the description. You are saying it is your opinion it belongs where it is in the modeling career section. I disagree. GARM (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Unless you have a sufficient reason for making the edit, leave it as is. as I said: "If in doubt, leave it alone for the time being or discuss it on the Talk Page with other editors. The reason I rolled back both, is that you didn't really provide sufficient reason for making either edit, and without a good reason, moving text around didn't significantly add to the article. When you're new, you're going to receive a lot of criticism on your edits." This has nothing to do with my opinion. Again, as I said, "I was pointing out that there were certain guidelines you need to become more familiar with. Another editor rolled back your edits as well for the same reasons I did." This issue is not about opinion, it is about the WP:BLP guidelines. You can choose to listen to advice of other editors and learn, or you can choose to argue and be defensive. RSTech1 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Dan Abrams Wikipedia Page

Hi there - I see that you have reverted my edits to Dan Abrams' page. I am not including any information that is inaccurate, and all I am trying to do is update the info to be accurate and updated. I mean no harm, and I would appreciate any advice on how to make these changes without violating any Wikipedia standards. I appreciate it, thank you.

Kbarnofsky (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You're clearly a publicist, promoter, or someone who has an interest in promoting Dan Abrams. This is not the venue for that. Other editors have made this same observation previously. All but one of your edits so far have been to write edits on Dan Abrams that have an advertising/promotional slant. Please become familiar with the guidelines on this: WP:NOTPROMOTION All Wikipedia articles need to adhere to the WP:NPOV policy, so please do not continue with your promotional/advertising edits. RSTech1 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Die Verbannten Kinder Evas

Dear RStech, my edits to Die Verbannten Kinder Evas were perfectly valid and explained. You have no right to simply roll them back. Thank you. 207.93.13.145 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You were clearly making a joke of your edit. That's not a valid reason for making changes. RSTech1 (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No I wasn't. Your revert was unwarranted. Please read edits and summaries more carefully: we don't need any more trigger-happy rollbackers who are prejudiced against IP editors. Thank you. 207.93.13.145 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It was warranted, and I did read it carefully. Ok, throwing around insults is uncalled for. I'm not a "trigger-happy rollbacker", and there is no prejudice here against IP editors. A direct quote from your edit summary: "wordy. oh dear, they have a lady of carnage. careful". Per WP:ES, WP:ESDONTS, WP:SUMMARYNO. A direct quote from the WP:SUMMARYNO guidelines:

Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don't's" of the Wikipedia Civility policy.

Please review WP:ES, WP:ESDONTS, and WP:SUMMARYNO. RSTech1 (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Pff. Why don't you have a look at the guidelines for rollback. If you want to be pissy about one little edit summary, you might have a warrant to revert that single one--not five in a row. And I'm not impressed by the acronyms you're throwing around. 207.93.13.145 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Two things: 1) Relax, and 2) They're not just acronyms - they're guidelines that you need to become familiar with. RSTech1 (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Dude. I got over 200,000 edits here. I know the rules. If you want to make yourself useful, go remove the BLP violation from User:Cormac Nocton--as an IP editor, I can't do that, and I'm not logging in here. If you value your acronyms, you'll know what BLP means. Thanks. 207.93.13.145 (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oi! You, there, chap! What was that? I didn't violate anything. That's my user page. I can talk about myself there. That's basically the entire purpose of a user page. If you are talking about my sandbox, I only write what my friends tell me to write about themselves there. Besides, it isn't like I'm creating official Wikipedia entries on them! It's a sandbox! It's for experiments! What are you even doing in there? Have some decency! Have some respect for a fellow editor's privacy!

The nerve! The cheek! The... kidney!

Really. Some people! Read the name of the guidelines, but not the specifics! Fine print, my friends, fine print!

And now, my disrespectful friend, I bid you adieu. Sea Captain Cormac 18:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@207.93.13.145: Weird, according to Wikipedia stats you have 393 edits, not 200,000+. Nice try. Now stop with the ongoing argument here, and move along. RSTech1 (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, RSTech1, Thank you kindly. It is good to see support from the more experienced users, not just bile from trollers like (User:207.93.13.145). Sea Captain Cormac 18:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sea Captain Cormac: No worries...I'm not here to harass anyone. Carry on, and Wiki in peace. RSTech1 (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I see the BLP violation has been removed by others. Perhaps, RSTech1, this could have been done much earlier had you not been otherwise occupied--yes, the BLP is important. 207.93.13.145 (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop. Now you're just trolling. The conversation was over yesterday. RSTech1 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Gigi Hadid

Please do not misrepresent wikipedia's MOS:FORLANG and WP:BEGIN guidelines as you did here. If you do so again I may have to report your username. 92.19.180.85 (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

First off, you need to check your facts. I was clear about removing those due to lack of source or explanation on a BLP article. You are welcome to re-add if you provide source reference. Per WP:CITE, WP:BLP Biographical information has to be accurate, and be based strictly on sourced material, and explained when added. Edit had nothing to do with language. Don't make threats to report people...that doesn't impress or intimidate anyone. That also falls under harassment. Just don't do it. Discuss like a civil person. RSTech1 (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Voortrekker Fort, Elandsfontein

Hi. Re your comment on my changes to the above article. Please note that I am a professional historian historic preservationist and come from South Africa, the country about which the article in question is concerned. I am also a veteran editor of articles on the heritage of South Africa. The change hat I made does not require a citation as the word 'commando' is plain English, particularly in a South African context and its meaning is clear. For confirmation of the Afrikaans and therefore South African origins of the word, please go to Commando. All of the above said, the work of patrollers like yourself is much appreciated as you contribute much to the quality of the written word in Wikipedia. Keep it up.

@Waitabout: I have no disrespect for your expertise or time working in the field. Our own personal expertise is irrelevant here on Wikipedia though. My edit wasn't about challenging expertise...it's about making sure that we make edits, the Wikipedia way. That's something that each of us has to do no matter what kind of credibility our expertise would gain us IRL. So unfortunately you are still incorrect. You were editing a direct quote, and the existing source contradicts your edit. Please become familiar with WP:CITE and WP:RS as those supersede our personal areas of expertise. If we used the argument that we are expert in x area, then we could each just go and rewrite different sections of Wikipedia without any third party verification. WP:VER It just doesn't work like that. RSTech1 (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

I see that you are correct that it is a direct quote, which I have checked, however, the website also uses the wrong term. Probably a typo. I leave it to you, but ::please consider a correction with the word 'commando' in square brackets to indicate that it is not part of a the quote. That way it will make more sense to experts in this area and readers in general. Your call.

The article content should be based on the reliable sources, not vice versa. Basically, at least for me, the rule of thumb would be to leave status quo, unless evidence supports change. I believe that's accurate to Wikipedia philosophy as well, but I'd need to look up the quote. So for now, I would leave the previous spelling/version of the word, while continuing to look for other reliable sources that confirm your understanding of the word. You could also post a note on the Talk Page and explain what you're discussing here about the "Commander"/"Commando" meaning in native language, and ask other editors if they are familiar with the same issue, and know of reliable sources to use to help clarify. What you're suggesting with the square brackets may work, if you can provide some kind of reference and note explaining the linguistic meaning. It might be better to discuss on the talk page for now and reach some consensus with other editors. RSTech1 (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Have it your way if really you must. I have pointed you to the error in the web site quoted and the article commando which should have clarified the origins of this term for you and its correctness in this context. Please respect my professional integrity as I respect your role as a patroller. Wikipedia needs us both. I have been around here long enough to know the rules, which I use as and when necessary. Since this one is really clear and simple you should easily find enough info in the places I have pointed you to and as a conscientious patroller should feel an obligation to go to those rather than stick with a rollback or quote the rules ad nausium. If you can't do that and withthe sameurgency with which you perform your other tasks you do not serve your full purpose here. I do not wish to argue so will not again correspond with you on this matter.Waitabout 14:00, 6 December 2016 (CAST)

I'm really not sure why you're saying "Have it your way". This isn't about my way or your way. Wikipedia isn't about winning. See: WP:WIN Ok, you say there is an error on the website. That may well be true, but you have no proof right now. According to Wikipedia, there has to be proof, aka reliable sources. We don't make edits based on our personal knowledge/opinion/experience/etc. This isn't about your professional integrity. I've said that before, and you're not listening to what I'm saying. Please don't say things like this "I have been around here long enough to know the rules"... We are all learning every day, and should listen to others. TBH except for the admins with over 100k edits, I don't think anyone can safely claim that. (They probably wouldn't even claim that.) To be honest if you don't understand WP:CITE and WP:RS yet, then you don't know the rules yet. The bottom line is that you don't have a source to back up your edit. Get a source to back up your edit, and you will be good. This is a Wikipedia core guideline, not my own personal invention or opinion. If you understand my point, then it would be more beneficial to spend your time doing research and finding reliable sources than to be arguing about this. RSTech1 (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it is just that you have a very, very narrow interpretation of the rules and the wrong idea about the primacy of your own role here. You tell me to debate with editors, when it is you who disagrees and won't go to the source material to check that I am right about there being no need for a citation. Ease up a bit - you are still relatively new here and should have more respect for the different roles in this community and the fact that you are just one player in a very big team where there are different and sometimes conflicting functions. This place does need experts and it is not in the spirit of this great institution to decide for yourself that that is not the case. (Please ask the management if you disagree with me, otherwise be careful about repeating your statement that expertise is 'irrelevant' on Wikipedia.) Also, try to be a little less confident about your opinion and try to question your interpretation of the rules. If you can do that and listen a little you will play a really positive role here. Waitabout 14:40, 6 December 2016 (CAST)

Ok, you say, "...it is you who disagrees and won't go to the source material to check that I am right about there being no need for a citation." I'm not sure how you can honestly say that. I pointed out that you are making changes to a quote, in direct contradiction to the included source material. That's not a narrow definition. I'm simply pointing out the guidelines. If I'm correct, then you're going to hear the same thing again and gain from other editors. If I'm not correct, then you'll never hear it again. Either way this discussion is moot. As I have previously mentioned, it is not constructive to continue to argue here. We can both agree that your time is better spend doing research for the articles you want to develop. It's one thing if you want to ask for help or discuss something here with an open mind, but since that isn't the case, I'm going to ask you to stop. RSTech1 (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit of article about Roger B. Wilson

Good Morning!

I noticed you deleted my edit of the article about Roger B. Wilson. You stated that you considered the edit was unconstructive. I would like to explain why I made the edit:

1. Wilson was not convicted of a felony and, thus, is not a felon. Being a felon comes with legal and social penalties which Wilson did not suffer.

2. I posted a live link to a news article about his probation sentence. I could use a different news article if you would prefer, however at present the article about Wilson does not have a live link about his probation (citation #5)

I admit I have limited experience editing Wikipedia, so I apologize if I violated some rule.

Thanks for writing me, and for reading my reply! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverCat (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @RiverCat. Wikipedia requires that edits to articles are based on reliable sources, and edits to biographical articles (especially living persons) have an even higher standard. See: WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:BLP Information needs to be accurate, and verifiable by any third party, per WP:VER. Your edit on Roger B. Wilson removed a major piece of data. The link you added later in the post did not disprove that he was a convicted felon, only that he had a misdemeanor, which could exist in addition to a felony. If you find a reliable source, per WP:RS, that shows that he had no felonies, then you could delete that phrase. As long as you learn from them, don't stress too much about those warnings, as they are a bit general. Just be sure to back up your edits with reliable sources, and you will be fine. RSTech1 (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Truss

Please do not keep undoing my edit. My comments were properly sourced as stated in the page. It is a well-known fact that has been properly attested and is not defamatory as it is true. I do not know what your connection is to Liz Truss but cleansing reports of factually correct material is surely not what Wikipedia is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.105.233 (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You provided exactly zero sources for your edit. Your edits were reverted solely based on the lack of sources. Read the edit summary notes. See WP:CITE and WP:RS I personally have no connection whatsoever. No one is saying you can't make the edit once you have proper sourcing. What you are doing is called edit warring, and you need to stop. See WP:WAR and WP:3RR. Remember AGF - No one is "cleansing reports of factually correct material". See Rule #1 above. RSTech1 (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

WUBR

the edits I made were not "sourced" because they were using information that was already on the page. the lack of sources on any of that information is not my concern, as it was pre-existing. --98.202.217.113 (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

If the information was already in the page, then you didn't need to make the change anyway. When you make an edit, if you're using sources already in the page, refer to it in the edit summary. Per WP:CITE, WP:ES Your edits need clarification if you're going to use information already in the page. RSTech1 (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Boston Marathon bombing

Sorry about that, the edit conflict must have caused the vandal version to appear. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Lol, no worries. I knew exactly what happened. I saw your previous track record of awesomeness, and I knew it was just a matter of two editors hitting the trigger at the same time. Happened to me a couple times too. :) RSTech1 (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

yeah, don`t worry about that, I did that once or twice too. Its just a hiccup in the good fight against IP vandalism. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC).

True story. 👍 RSTech1 (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you two, feels good to have everyone help at once though lol. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Muslim women in sport

Is there history behind this edit war? I feel like I am reading it wrong but it reads as if the user is saying that the mere mention of Islam in relation to Muslim women is debatable and 'unsourced'. Could be a brain fart on my side but looking for clarification. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if there is history, but I'm reading it the way you are. Today is the first time I've seen that article. I only noticed it because the user was deleting large portions of text with no source to back up his view. I don't think you're brain farting at all, unless I'm having a parallel brain fart, lol. I'm not sure why some people get so heated when you simply ask them to use evidence instead of brute-forcing their opinion/POV on others. RSTech1 (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Another editor commented on the talk thread and they gave a little more logic. If that's the case, I think the article needs to be rewritten pretty significantly. I don't have the expertise to determine what belongs/what doesn't aside from what has been there without issue for several weeks. And I also still think that the original 'complaint' about the issue is erring on the side of ignorance and still reads as issue with the mere mention of Islam rather than a research/citation problem. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

After looking at those...That does makes sense. That's where they need to hash it out though...the talk page, not by ping pong reversions. At least that's good. Maybe the article should clarify that with any "religion" there is a cultural aspect, as well as a religious aspect, and some people mean one more than the other. Some countries might be labeled culturally Islamic, but not everyone is necessarily "religious" or "pious" or "devout". Just like with any other religion, such as Christianity, Judaism, etc, etc. Just my 2 cents. I'm with you...I don't have enough expertise on the topic to go much deeper. I would agree with your take that it's more about ignorance. Yeah, it definitely needs a rewrite, no question! RSTech1 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Eicosapentaenoic Acid

Regarding my edit to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eicosapentaenoic_acid

I removed a section which had unsubstantiated claims. You sent me a message asking for a citation that the source is inaccurate. However, if you watch the cited video that I removed, it has absolutely nothing to do with the text on the page. It is simply an intro course on energy storage in the body, but does not make any claim on blood cholesterol levels.

I hope you understand my intention was to remove an unsubstantiated claim. Are you saying I should cite a source to show that the unsubstantiated paragraph is incorrect? It seems like the onus of proof should be on the one writing the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.248.84 (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @205.215.248.84: I'll be happy to answer your question. The onus is on the editor making the current edit. Gathering your data from reliable sources -- per WP:RS, citing sources when you make edits -- per WP:CITE, and explaining your edits in the edit summaries -- per WP:ES, are all core to the Wikipedia editing process. If you're going to delete content, you need to prove why you're doing it. So you should provide sources that show why the existing content was false. Even if you only use it in your edit summary. It should be verifiable. It's better though if you cite the source in the content you add. When there are content disagreements, the best way to handle it is to discuss the contradiction on the article's talk page, and get some feedback from other editors, and then come to consensus together. Please see: Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle and Consensus. If you take some time to check out these links, it will help a lot. RSTech1 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I would like to simply state I think it is unfortunate the rules put the onus on the editor even to remove unsubstantiated claims. If there was a relevant citation underpinning the original claim, then yes, but the citation was irrelevant. However I respect that these are the rules. (Please do not take this as an attack on you, I simply disagree with the rules). Thanks for pointing out my error helpfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.241.95 (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Try not to think of it as a bad thing...I honestly think the current system is the only way it could possibly work. Who's to say that the previous content is unsubstantiated? The only way this works whole thing works is consensus. If content has been accepted by the consensus, then later another editor wants to change the content, they need to have a good reason and provide proof. That seems perfectly fair to me. Sure, frustrating at times, but fair. RSTech1 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi RSTech1. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", 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! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. This will be extremely helpful, as now I can use other counter-vandalism tools as well. I promise to only use these newfound abilities for good and not evil. :) RSTech1 (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations! BTW: I use wp:Huggle, many prefer others such as wp:STiki Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I just started using STiki and will be checking out Huggle as well. RSTech1 (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, RSTech1, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

User talk:66.65.98.158: Difference between revisions - acrylic paint article

Good afternoon,

I read all the guidelines and was wondering what is the best way to add the information of the article, without adding a link (as i understand the link is seen as spam). The article contains an independent overview of the most used acrylic paints and has the support from many artists shown in the comments. I think the content of the article is too much to completely add hence i added a link. Would it be better if i make a small summary in 2 sentences and then a reference in the reference section? (rather than an external link)

Looking forward to your reply.

66.65.98.158 (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's policy on external link spam. Unfortunately that link and that site as a whole do not qualify as a reliable source. It is mainly a commercial site. Please do not attempt to post any more links to that site or web domain. If you are affiliated with the site, please be aware that you should not be posting articles or links about your site, as that would be against Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. RSTech1 (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Johnny Cash

Hi RSTech1, you recently undid one of my revisions on the Johnny Cash page, I'm not a wiki-wiz or anything so I very may well have made a mistake, but I was under the impression that the reference links I replaced were no good anyway.

The Johnny Cash page was listed on the Wikipedia:Cleanup page and described as "some bare URLs and other fixes needed", after checking the page I did indeed find several reference links with missing ISBN numbers etc and replaced the links accordingly ...did I miss something/ do it wrong?

Mr suntan (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to post a welcome message on your talk page with some helpful links. Please familiarize yourself with the citation, reliable source, and external links guidelines. RSTech1 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Nice work! Been beating me to reverts consistently JustBerry (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! :) RSTech1 (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

More fitting, eh? --JustBerry (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Just testing out some new userboxes. :) RSTech1 (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't move.

After reverting 5 edits before I could, I've decided to send my cat hitman after you. Jk nice job

Layla, the remover (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Lol, awesome. Thanks! The cat hitman is welcome any time. ;) RSTech1 (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You deserved it!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Your are gonna be my anti-vandalism example for the rest of my life :) FriyMan (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Lol, awesome. :) RSTech1 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Marine Corps section to article: Recruit Training

Hello,

I would like to justify factually correct edits to the Marine Corps section to the article: Recruit Training that were mistakenly labeled as factually incorrect despite having cited 4 credible sources to the previous edits, some of which have been cited from official government websites in many other Marine Corps Wikipedia articles. ( )

I will reply to the assertions with additional sources:

Your comment: "Marine Corp is not "Infantry-focused."

The Marine Corps (not Corp) is infantry focused per the sourced Wikipedia article: United States Marine Corps: "The close integration of disparate Marine units stems from an organizational culture centered on the infantry. Every other Marine capability exists to support the infantry. Unlike some Western militaries, the Corps remained conservative against theories proclaiming the ability of new weapons to win wars independently. For example, Marine aviation has always been focused on close air support and has remained largely uninfluenced by air power theories proclaiming that strategic bombing can single-handedly win wars.[25] This focus on the infantry is matched with the doctrine of "Every Marine [is] a rifleman", a focus of Commandant Alfred M. Gray, Jr., emphasizing the infantry combat abilities of every Marine. All Marines, regardless of military specialization, receive training as a rifleman; and all officers receive additional training as infantry platoon commanders.[26]"

Source 25: Lawliss, Chuck (1988). The Marine Book: A Portrait of America's Military Elite. New York: Thames and Hudson.

Source 26: Milks, Keith A. (8 May 2003). Ensuring 'Every Marine a Rifleman' is more than just a catch phrase. Marine Corps News. 22 MEU, USMC. Story ID # 20071230234422. Archived from the original on 24 December 2007.

Your comment: "Infantry MOS's get Infantry training, not the rest."

This is incorrect. All Marines regardless of future occupational specialty attend the School of Infantry (East or West). There is no reason to believe that non-infantry Marines do not receive infantry training when they are required attend the School of Infantry before attending MOS school. Non-infantry Marines receive basic infantry training while infantry Marines receive basic infantry training in addition to specialized MOS-qualification infantry training.

From the official Marine Corps site: http://www.marines.com/operating-forces/presence-detail/-/presence/detail/pres_loc_geiger "Non-infantry MOS Marines are assigned to MCT to hone all basic infantry skills."

From the official Marine Corps site: http://www.marines.com/becoming-a-marine/school-of-infantry "At SOI, Marines who have recently graduated from recruit training continue their education and training to become more proficient in the fundamentals of being a rifleman. Marines with a Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of infantry are trained at the Infantry Training Battalion (ITB), while all non-infantry Marines are trained at the Marine Combat Training Battalion (MCT). There are two Schools of Infantry: Camp Geiger located in North Carolina and Camp Pendleton in California." From Wikipedia article United States Marine Corps School of Infantry: "The School of Infantry's training mission ensures 'Every Marine is, first and foremost, a Rifleman'. At SOI, Marines with the Military Occupational Specialty of infantry (0300 occupational field) are trained at the Infantry Training Battalion (ITB), while all non-infantry Marines are trained in basic infantry and combat skills at the Marine Combat Training Battalion (MCT Bn). SOI marks a transition in the professional training of entry-level students from basically trained Marines to combat-ready Marines."

Your comment: "Basic combat skills don't make them Infantry."

None of my edits claimed that non-infantry Marines were infantry Marines. The edits stated that all Marines receive infantry training, which is factually correct per the numerous and credible aforementioned sources.

Pending official or credible sources to counter the original edits, I will seek to reinstate them with the original cited sources that were deleted without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:302:698C:B498:6DDE:85D3:490F (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Being an Infantry soldier in the 101st Airborne Division myself, having deployed to Afghanistan, and being a combat veteran, I know a thing or two about how the military works. We worked with Marines downrange too. I've been best friends with Marines for my entire adult life. Words and articles can be massaged to present any viewpoint. Ask any Marine Infantryman, and they will argue with you. By definition, if your MOS is not Infantry, then the training is not Infantry-specific. It's a matter of logic. Every single branch goes through some similar combat training. I'm sorry, but the bottom line is that your sources don't support the point you are trying to make. RSTech1 (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply:

Being a former U.S. Marine of almost 9 years and combat veteran (Iraq as a Marine and then Afghanistan as a Private Military Contractor), I think I'm in a better position to state how entry level training in the U.S. Marine Corps works than somebody who is serving in the U.S. Army, especially when citing official U.S. government websites. Having Marine friends and remembering anecdotes from former Marine infantrymen (who are not generally exposed to life outside of an infantry battalion ) do not serve as credible evidence compared to official government websites, doctrine, firsthand experience from a former Marine, and other Wikipedia articles that directly contradict your sentiment. I'm sorry, but the bottom line is that I have cited numerous official sources to back up my edits on top of more credible firsthand experience, both of which are literally being ignored. What sources did I list are incorrect and how are they incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:302:698C:B498:6DDE:85D3:490F (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

So, you're a non-Infantry Marine... Not to be rude, but how do you even know what "Infantry training" is then? (Again, I'm legitimately not trying to be rude...I'm just asking the question.) Going to training taught by Infantry doesn't mean it's "Infantry training". Just like going to Ranger school doesn't make you a Ranger. I didn't say all my Marine buddies were 0311s, it was a good mix of MOS's. Either way, anecdotes are irrelevant. The bottom line is that you're trying to push a POV (Point of View), your sources don't prove your point, and they don't all qualify as reliable sources. The Marine Corp website would be a reliable source if not for the topic. It's a major conflict of interest to use Marine websites to prove something about Marines. CNN would be a reliable source, but that article didn't prove your point. The others were not even relevant. Trying to prove that one branch is "harder" than another is really just a source of endless argument and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, because the truth is that each branch has certain units that are "more elite" than others. RSTech1 (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I have received the following message:

"Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Recruit training. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. POV-pushing, factual inaccuracies, and lack of reliable sources. Those references don't prove the point you are trying to make. Per WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV RSTech1 (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)"

Can you describe how the edits were personal commentary? They were all written with objective and factual citations (to repeat, from official sources, some of which are cited in other Marine Corps articles) at the end with no explanation as to how they are not factual. If anything, I would argue that your commentary regarding your experience in the 101st is about as personal and biased as it gets, despite the fact that U.S. Army experience doesn't serve as a relevant baseline to personal commentary on U.S. Marine Corps training. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:302:698C:B498:6DDE:85D3:490F (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm merging this with the above topic, since it's just part 2 of the same issue. Infantry experience is relevant no matter which branch you're in. 11Bs and 0311s are brothers separated at birth. Regarding commentary, my comments were in the correct place...on the Talk Page, not in the article itself. Trust me, I'm holding back. RSTech1 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this is an encyclopedia, and it's not a place for POV-pushing. WP:NPOV Like I said above: Trying to prove that one branch is "harder" than another is really just a source of endless argument and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, because the truth is that each branch has certain units that are "more elite" than others. If you don't hear it from me, you'll hear it from someone else. Anyway, this is a dead horse. Let's stop beating it. WP:DROPTHESTICK RSTech1 (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to simply drop it because you are using personal conjecture to repeatedly undo my correct edits. The bit about 11Bs and 0311s is most definitely POV-pushing and has no place in an encyclopedia either. I never specified my former MOS (you were assuming I wasn't formerly infantry), nor is it relevant to the discussion at hand, especially seeing that I'm a combat veteran. All Marines go through infantry training at the School of Infantry, which is an indisputable fact. You claim that going to training taught by infantry (in reality, combat instructors may or may not have an infantry MOS) doesn't mean it's "infantry training" and then use personal commentary and a comparison to Ranger School, which is inappropriate as Ranger School is a U.S. Army institution, not U.S. Marine Corps, which is a different branch of service.

To repeat an official United States Government web site: http://www.marines.com/operating-forces/presence-detail/-/presence/detail/pres_loc_geiger "Non-infantry MOS Marines are assigned to MCT to hone all basic infantry skills." So, all Marines go to the School of Infantry and hone infantry skills. Are you arguing that the official Marine Corps website is stating incorrect information about the Marine Corps? I might add the the Marine Corps Times (like the rest of the 'Times') are tabloids and are in the business of selling a product, not informing the masses. The article, quite literally from a .mil site (an official government website, therefore, a credible source): http://www.22ndmeu.marines.mil/News/Article-View/Article/509993/ensuring-every-marine-a-rifleman-is-more-than-just-a-catch-phrase/ "Going through the BSTS was like looking back to MCT with our learning the general infantry skills and our squad interaction in a field environment," said Pfc. Christian L. Mitchell, of Newark, N.J., a food service specialist serving with the MEU's Camp Commandant section." Far more credible source than the Marine Corps Times.

How can I be pushing a POV when I cited a litany of objective sources? It sounds to me like you are guarding the website in an effort to not let the Marine Corps appear "tougher" or whatever than the U.S. Army, especially given your personal background in the U.S. Army. I would argue that you are rejecting factual evidence in a biased manner. I don't know how the U.S. Army works, but if you feel that the U.S. Army sends all non-infantry personnel to follow-on infantry training after boot camp and before MOS-qualification school, then feel free to put it in. What I'm asserting is that's what happens in the U.S. Marine Corps. At no point did I say that the Marine Corps was "tougher" than the Army, that is your own personal conjecture and doesn't serve as a basis for an objective discussion. If you want to run around to every Marine Corps Wikipedia entry and remove all references to 'Every Marine a Rifleman' using "I heard it from a Lance Corporal once" or "because I feel like the Marine Corps isn't as tough as the Army," be my guest, but it will seriously undermine the analytic integrity of Wikipedia.

2601:14B:302:698C:B498:6DDE:85D3:490F (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're really missing the point. Like I said, dead horse. I don't seem to be getting through. You're going to do what you're going to do, no matter what I say. See how well that works for you. RSTech1 (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you're simply ignoring all of my valid points and jumping to the "beating a dead horse" schtick. I know in the U.S. military "do as I say because I'm in charge" is a perfectly acceptable philosophy, but out here in the civilian world, we have to back up our assertions and arguments with objective sources and viewpoints. I like the thinly veiled threat and see that you have a history of undoing other peoples' changes for no other real justification than "because I said so." I can only wonder how managed to become an admin on Wikipedia. We'll see how it works out for you as well. :) "I'm an expert in all things Marine Corps!" - Says the Random Army guy. 2601:14B:302:698C:B498:6DDE:85D3:490F (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You need to relax, bud. RSTech1 (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

My reverts

Hello, For the edits that I made, that you reverted. If you click on the link of the wars shown it is displayed that Serbia defeated the Bulgarians during some of their wars, not "draws"

@TreacherousMastermind: Where is your sourcing for this change that I assume you are referring to. Also, I see you have proceeded to make these edits. What is your sourcing for those edits as well? Please remember that content on Wikipedia must be WP:Verifiable. As a final note, it is often advisable that you engage in discussion prior to reverting a revert, as you did here. --JustBerry (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

---

FYI

FYI, I have your talk page on my watchlist, as I realize you're sometimes Huggling and not responding to user inquiries right away. I use STiki, which generally allows me to do both between client and browser. --JustBerry (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries! You're being helpful...much appreciated! :) RSTech1 (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Same to you! Thanks again for the numerous reverts. --JustBerry (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! You got it! I'm all about sniping vandalism. :) RSTech1 (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello There!

Good to see ya! It seems only the two of us are here in the recent changes patrol, you're going good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonprost (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello right back! :) Thanks! Keep up the good fight. RSTech1 (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Louise Bourgeois

Hello,

Can you tell me why this link was deemed inappropriate?

Thank you,

Liz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabethroberttate (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Please see the links I posted on your talk page and become familiar with the guidelines referenced. RSTech1 (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Carpet Bombing

I didn't mean for my edit of the Carpet Bombing article to be destructive. My edit simply put in the fact that Carpet Bombing overwhelmingly kills civilians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingalinga (talk • contribs) 16:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Based on what evidence? You did not cite any reliable sources to make that statement. The Wikipedia warnings auto-increment, so since you already had a level 2 warning, it gave you a level 3 warning. After level 4, you can get blocked. This is an encyclopedia, so edits need to be based on evidence, not anecdotes, opinions, etc. See: WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:NPOV RSTech1 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Alarm Clocks

Hi RSTech1

This is in regard to the edit under Alarm clocks. The Alarm clocks page is also found under ADA Compliance kit which include alarm clocks for the deaf and hard of hearing. So I added an example of an alarm clock for the deaf and hard of hearing. Please let me know if I should put this example somewhere else. I can add it elsewhere on the ADA compliance kit page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisKash (talk • contribs) 17:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the warning I left on your talk page was pretty clear: "Wikipedia is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations." Your link went to a sales page for alarm clocks. That's clearly promotional and links to that website are not appropriate. RSTech1 (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

RE: Page "Ulagalantha Perumal Temple, Tirukoyilur" edit on 13-December-2016

The edit I made today, is to make sure the identity of the temple is being correct, as per Vaishnavism. There is one Ulagalantha Perumal Temple in Kancheepuram (or Kanchipuram) and that temple is primarily referred as Ulagalalantha Perumal Temple. While the Lord in Tirukoyilur temple also resembles the same, He is referred by the name of Trivikrama, as He was fondly called and also is the same name on which Azhwars sung the Nalayira Divyaprabandham. In fact, the temple is known as Trivikrama Temple among the locals. Hence, I made the change, matching the tradition.

Therefore, please undo the reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.194.143.29 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You changed the name of the temple, despite the name of the article being Ulagalantha Perumal Temple, Tirukoyilur. You can't just go and change things like that. You did not cite any reliable sources. Your edit said "Typo correction", which is less than accurate, and doesn't provide a valid reason for the edit. If you provide a reliable source, in the article content (not the info boxes), you can add that that temple also has a different name among the locals. If you feel there are major inaccuracies in the article, you need to discuss that on the article's talk page, and not just make unilateral decisions without evidence or consensus. Once you have discussed it with other editors and ahve reach consensus, and have evidence, then make the agreed-upon edits. See CONSENSUS However, please do not go and make the same sweeping change to the entire article like you did. My reversion of your edit was valid. RSTech1 (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Agnes Martin article edit, why not okay?

Hello RSTech1! I saw your removal of the link to the 2000 film of a 1997 interview with Agnes Martin put up by the Tate museum on you tube. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agnes_Martin&diff=next&oldid=754619398 What about that film or link violates the Wikipedia guidelines? I read the guidelines at the link, then looked at the video, and I cannot see the problem with a link to that video, not arising from anything on that long list. I need some educating, it seems. That article has none or almost none of her art for a reader to see with the text, in contrast to the article on Vincent Van Gogh or Jan Steen. So a link to a video put up by a famous museum seems quite a good thing to me, both to read about and see her art. Would you find the film acceptable as an in line citation to support a statement about her long years of searching for perfect abstraction in her painting? Question posed as a way to express why I find the film appropriate. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

For one...conflict of interest. The user posting the link is clearly associated with the Tate Museum and is posting links to multiple Tate online properties. There are other resources online about Agnes Martin. If you don't have a WP:COI, and have conviction that it's the best resource out there, by all means. I was mainly looking at it from the new user WP:COI angle - her edits seemed a bit promo-only. RSTech1 (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh I did not look at the editor doing the posting, I see your point on that. And then I looked at the other External links. The interview at Taos in 1997 is already linked, produced by the guys who interviewed her. It lacks the commentary by the people at Tate, but shows her paintings, meaning Agnes Martin, and her talking, so the article is fine without it. Thanks. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries. :) Thanks for bring up the question though...I appreciate the discussion. RSTech1 (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Bottega Veneta COI

Hey RSTech1, I've been working with both Bottega Veneta and the Wikipedia community on the article, and I just saw your flags for COI and PROMO. I'm hoping to address your concerns and work towards ensuring that the article is up to the standards of Wikipedia and removing the maintenance templates. Let me know what I can do!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Avalon Drive

As the founder of Avalon Drive, i tried to edit some details to the page and recieved a vandalism message. I wish to correct these details. Will i have a problem doing so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damionjd (talk • contribs) 06:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Damionjd. Edits should not be made by people associated with the article. Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines. Your edits did not cite any kind of evidence...you just deleted content with no evidence to back you up. All edits need to be based on reliable sources, and should cite these sources and explain the reasons for the edits in the edit summary. Often new users want to jump right into editing without time to get familiar with how Wikipedia works. I've posted a welcome message on your talk page with a number of helpful links to get you started. I recommend you take some time to work through these and become familiar with how things work. RSTech1 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

---