User talk:MrBill3/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Yo Ho Ho

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

OUP

You should have received an email from me with a link to a registration form to complete - could you please either complete it or email me if you did not receive it? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for your perspective

Hello MrBill3, you may recall corresponding with me around a variety of alt-med articles/topics, especially Rolfing. While you and I often had different points of view, I believe that we found mutual respect and that we both operate with a value on strong logic and courteousness to other editors. You've been absent from the Rolfing article for a number of months, and the tone has deteriorated in your absence. I'm not expecting that you will side with me (the opposite is usually more likely) but I do hope that you might be able to advise me on how to navigate the WP rules and structure. Please consider returning to the fray. --Karinpower (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Is a 'welcome back'

... in order? —ATS 🖖 talk 03:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back!

It's really good to see you editing again :-) Alexbrn (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MrBill3 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Alex. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. MrBill3 (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

AWB

Hello MrBill3. Thank you for cleaning up articles. Please make sure not to alter quotes when removing honorifics. I've not finished patrolling my watchlist yet but already have seen three quote alteration instances. The other problem I saw recur is moving {{dead link}} tags in the footnote when one was already there (the other intended for the article text, which would best be kept as-is or deleted instead of moved/duplicated). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be more careful. MrBill3 (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

There, worked on the refs by hand and fixed the dead links. Tried to add the details for any other refs that would facilitate verification. @PaleoNeonate: Just as a note per Template:Dead link "If the article uses clickable footnotes, then this tag should be placed just before the </ref> that contains the dead link. The notice will then correctly appear in the reference section (instead of in the body of the text, which is not recommended)." perhaps there was a reason in was intentionally placed in article text? Best. MrBill3 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Great thanks for improving the pseudoscience article. I think that you're right, at least the {{dead link}} template documentation has: If the article uses clickable footnotes, then this tag should be placed just before the </ref> that contains the dead link. The notice will then correctly appear in the reference section (instead of in the body of the text, which is not recommended). so duplicates after the <ref>...</ref> tag can probably be deleted. I always find that MOS topics are difficult to find when I don't remember their shortcuts, checking the documentation of the tag itself being easier, it'd be nice if it pointed to the proper MOS section but it unfortunately currently doesn't. —PaleoNeonate – 16:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a reason in was intentionally placed in article text? probably ignorance (and maybe on my part if I added those) . —PaleoNeonate – 16:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Well at any rate, I found archives for the dead links. No worries. Thanks for your contributions. MrBill3 (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

And it's always nice to see a WP-Skeptic member become active again. Welcome back, —PaleoNeonate – 16:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Provel Cheese

Have you ever had melted provel cheese. My statement was completely true. I am offended you changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.65.183.24 (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Lone Sailor

The Lone Sailor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My name is XXX and I was the model for the statue. I wish to add some references that validate this fact and are not available on-line in electronic format due to age. I would be more than happy to add these references but, as a neophyte editor, I am not sure if that is even possible. These documents are over 30 years old. I have several original letters, written in Stanley Bleifeld's hand, that document my involvement. I also have an e-mail between Stanley and myself from 10 years ago (just prior to his passing) that also validates my involvement. I appreciate that some of my recently added and easily verifiable references have been accepted. Thank you for your work to ensure that the integrity of Wikipedia is solid. RealLoneSailor (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@RealLoneSailor: Greetings. First, the appropriate place for this discussion is on the talk page of the article. I left a message there, you can reply there and myself and other editors can read and respond.

Second the type of references you have mentioned above are not considered reliable sources by WP policy. Have a read at the link and note references must be published by a reliable third party. Taking primary source material and extracting facts is considered original research. I know this can be frustrating but WP is an encyclopedia and has particular policies (see the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth). As a note published references that are not available online are acceptable, so long as adequate information is provided for verification (there are still libraries etc).

As a suggestion, I think the story you have is one that might be of interest, say to a reporter in Hawaii where the most recent Lone Sailor statue was very recently placed. You might consider writing to a reporter in that area, telling your story and providing documentation. This could result in a published story that could be used as a reference. If you can provide a link or send me a copy (or provide a method of verifying the article) of the article by Maloney (It is not necessary to disclose your identity as a WP editor, see Wikimedia:Privacy policy) in Navy Times that would likely provide a reference for all the details that would be appropriate to include in an encyclopedic article.

I do wonder what information you think would improve the article from it's current state. I hope you enjoy your foray into editing WP and continue to help improve many other articles. Best wishes. MrBill3 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Maya Astronomy

Thanks for cleaning up the Maya astronomy article. This is a half-finished early draft, so be patient. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I run AWB over quite a few articles. Hopefully the changes have helped. As a note drafts can be developed as a subpage of your sandbox. If it passed review I suspect you have it a little further along than half. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for the Halloween apples and kind words! Here is something less healthy, but equally tasty. Dilidor (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

thoracotomy

Hello, yes I made a mistake, this is LESS or Equal to 60mmhg (or less than 70mmhg in some texts) and not superior or equal! my bad... but certainly not more than 70. And I did not add any new references because the text in reference number 3 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/1-s2.0-S1524153X00800020/first-page-pdf) exactly say so (cf 1st paraf "clinical indication"). if you want another reference see Schwartz principle of surgery 9th ed. pp140-142 fig 7-5) Best regards

epiguet

@Epiguet1988:. Greetings and welcome to WP. Thank you for your interest in contributing. If the references so state that please do correct the article, please note in your edit summary that the correction you are making is as stated in the refs. I will take a look at the reference when I get a chance and verify that the content reflects it accurately. Adding the other reference might be a good idea. It seems to be a reference that meets WP:MEDRS. I appreciate your desire to contribute to a medical article with accurate information and your Mea Culpa (you'll find graciousness like this goes a long way on WP).

A couple of notes:

• You may retain anonymity on WP, your WP user name is all that is required for identification. This may seem a non issue but I wanted to inform you that no personal information need be disclosed (Wikimedia Privacy Policy).
• Please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~ this facilitates communication and keeping track of editing activities. Likely you will become a respected editor and it will reduce issues in the community. It lets WP editors quickly see who is talking and what there history on WP is.
• The additional reference you suggested sounds very good. The addition of author name, date and ISBN would be helpful. It can be formatted using a number of methods into a template like so:
• {{cite book |last= |first= |title= Schwartz Principle of Surgery |edition= 9th |date= |publisher= |pages= 140-2 fig. 7-5 |isbn= }} (if edited rather than authored parameters for that are available). A number of tools are available to facilitate this (WP:Citation tools).

The previous Wiki Markup yields:

• Schwartz Principle of Surgery (9th ed.). pp. 140-2 fig. 7-5.
• Inline the markup would be surrounded by <ref> and </ref>

Again thanks for contributing and I hope you enjoy editing WP and stick around. You may be interested in WP:Wikiproject Medicine. Feel free to let me know if there is any way I can be of assistance. Best wishes.

MrBill3 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Arizona senate election,2018

So why was the article so much better when it specifically mentioned an incumbent who was not running for an election,not the seat in general,as a target that you "had to" revert my edit?...I suppose you have expressed your discontent to the person who removed the whole sentence two minutes later?--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings and welcome to WP. Your edit removed sourced content. Using a program for detecting vandalism I determined that the information you removed was reflected in the source cited. The following edits provided sources and improved the structure and flow of the article. Please take some time to review WP policies on references. MrBill3 (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

My edit replaced one obsolete word ("Flake") with two up-to-date words ("the seat").Your automated program (as well as the ridiculous reference policies) did NOT improve the article.12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edit was directly before a reference. It did not reflect the content of the cited reference. Content on WP must accurately reflect published reliable sources. If you wish to make a change, provide the source that supports the change. If you wish to address issues with the policies of WP this is not the appropriate forum. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Also new text should be below old text, new talk page sections should be placed at the bottom of the page. Civility is valued in the WP community. MrBill3 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A published source becoming obsolete means it is no longer to be relied on.The change was already supported by references elsewhere in the article.(As to creating a registered account,I have mainly edited from this IP since 2003,and try to stay out of databases...an unsolicited registered account was created for me in 2005 but I use it quite sparingly).12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, once the information in a source is no longer relevant it should be removed and the associated content. You can cite a reference already in an article by naming the reference and citing the name. You will see many references cited multiple times in many articles. I think your edit was valid, it was just not what the source cited at the end of the statement indicated. I am glad someone proceeded to update the article. The following edits seemed to provide sources and explain the subject clearly. This would be my priority in editing WP. Perhaps your edit and my revert brought it to the attention of those who followed up.

Do you feel the article as it is now is accurate, and includes appropriate content?

With some years of experience editing you are clearly aware there is no requirement to edit from a registered account. My suggestion was to eliminate possible confusion if there are multiple users of the IP, unnecessary if you are the only user of that IP (and not a requirement regardless). I apologize for reverting an experienced editor using STiki with boilerplate. An advantage of registered accounts is that a flag would have been triggered leading to more careful consideration. Thank you for your contributions, I hope your enjoy editing WP and continue to do so. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

John Denison (engineer) edit

That edit was not a test. I created the article for cat trains which I subsequently linked in the Denison article. :) 184.166.187.64 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. Sorry. I just did an edit that eliminates the piping in that WL but maintains case, pluralization and link. Thanks for your contributions and best wishes. MrBill3 (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Florida NRHPs references, development needed

Hi, i saw your note at wt:NRHP and hence your development of Pompano Beach Mound. Thanks for developing that up from "NRIS-only" status to being a quite acceptable Wikipedia article. You might not know that there's a tally sheet at wp:NRHPPROGRESS which shows status of referencing in NRHP articles. It happens that Florida has by far the most "NRIS-only" ones, i.e. it has the greatest need/opportunity for article improvements. National Register of Historic Places listings in Broward County, Florida is listed as having 17 reference-deficient articles, now maybe it is less one for your effort. I've been working on reducing those tallies in other states, following tips in wp:NRHPHELP.

If you'd like to work on other Florida NRHP articles, I'd be happy to cooperate, e.g. perhaps developing Bryan Building and the others in Broward County. I am pretty fast at putting in the NRHP references which are available online from the National Park Service now for almost all Florida NRHPs, but some more development using the reference and perhaps other references is needed too. I'll watch here for your reply, but feel free to ping me or post at my Talk page if I seem to have missed something, or for any other reason. Keep up your good work! cheers, --doncram 01:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have done a bunch more work on Pompano Beach Mound. I am looking at Bryan Building now. I look forward to collaboration. Sometimes I find references and don't get a chance to add content so I stick them in the Further reading section. When I do that feel free to read the potential refs and add content. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"A Day In Hollywood" edit

Hi there -

I got your note about the edit I made to the article on "A Day In Hollywood/A Night In The Ukraine." Respectfully, I don't quite understand or agree with your assessment of my edit. Everything in my entry is fact, and in fact, I was trying to correct some generalities about the show that I found exaggerated (the bit about the amount of tap dancing, for instance), or otherwise incorrect.

I have done the show - I know the material well, and I know of what I speak.

I was not trying to "promote" the show or do anything else that wouldn't fit in with a neutral point of view. I was merely clarifying what the content and style of the show actually is.

I ask respectfully that my comments be restored, unless you can point to anything *specific* that is actually incorrect about the information.

Thanks much,

2601:182:CF80:D8A:9C82:8:B71B:B496 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. Content on WP must be supported by published reliable sources. Personal first hand knowledge does not meet that standard. Also as you have stated you "have done the show", it probably constitutes a conflict of interest. Thank you for your interest in contributing to WP. I hope you take some time to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines and continue to contribute. MrBill3 (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi -

I do not wish to argue, though I think if I were to do the research I could cite the sourses for my changes. I'm also rather amused by the accusation of "conflict of interest" as to me that suggests that a professional cannot contribute information about their subject of expertise - I'm sure you did not mean that. But, never mind - life is too short.

However, I did remove the (restored) statement about tap dance, which is incorrect, and additionally does not have a citation listed to a reliable source. (I also find that particular statement to be more subjective than objective. In any case, the show does not in any way have a "significant amount" of tap dance - that is not a supportable statement.)

Thank you for your guidance.

2601:182:CF80:D8A:9C82:8:B71B:B496 (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Without sources to cite, content should not be modified on WP. If what you changed had no source to support it then removing it was the appropriate step (although perhaps tagging it "Citation needed" might have been better). I did not mean that a professional cannot contribute in their area of expertise, however the relationship you described with the show was not that of a professional in the same industry but an individual who had participated directly in the show the article is about. You can read the conflict of interest guideline and I think it will be clear that this position creates a potential conflict of interest. You seem to have direct personal involvement with the subject of the article, that's clear enough for me to consider it a COI, others may feel differently and there are appropriate places to hold that discussion.

I thought I might inform you of the Privacy policy also. I do suggest signing up for a registered account. If you have further questions or comments please feel free. Best wishes. MrBill3 (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

James Garner

I read about his daughters, and it doesn't mention them having any children. So I assumed that they don't have kids; anyway, it doesn't talk about James Garner having grandchildren, but I looked on this website, I think it was Answers.com, and it seemed to confirm he had three teenage grandchildren. I'm kind of torn over which source to believe.--92.30.169.228 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Dalrymple-Hay Nature Reserve

Dear Bill,

I'm writing on 16 Dec. 2017 and I have now figured out what it was that you removed .. i.e. the comment that the Reserve is not a heritage listed place. Viz. below:

The Dalrymple-Hay Nature Reserve is a protected nature reserve, but not a heritage listed place, that is located in the northerns suburbs of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. The 10.768-hectare (26.61-acre) reserve is situated in the suburb of St Ives, 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) from the Sydney central business district.

This is NOT particularly important to have in the article and I guess was just a comment in passing.

Re your comment "but you didn't provide a reliable source" the heritage listing in New South Wales may be found in an online inventory maintained by the NSW Government and searchable here: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/heritagesearch.aspx

Searching there I don't think you will find the place .. hence it is said it is not a listed heritage place.

How do you suggest one would provide a source for something NOT being listed?

If there is a way then I will try to do it. But it not, then (as I noted) it is not really important and can be just forgotten about.

NB: I am not good at adding REFERENCES either .. hope to learn that before too long.

Regards, John (john.mail at Ozemail)

58.173.27.252 (talk) Hello Bill,

I found your comment "Based on the information in the message you left I think it is necessary to direct you to the conflict of interest policy, particularly the section on Paid editing". Can you please explain what you are meaning by this. Was their something about anything written on Dalrymple-Hay Nature Reserve that made you think of paid editing? Best Regards, John (at 16 December 2017).

58.173.27.252 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC) Hi Bill,

I'd like to discuss with you this as below as you would know a lot more than me about what is a reliable source and how to cite such .  I am John Byrnes contactable as john dot mail at ozemail dot com dot au.  I have a small Council grant for working on history of this place so will be wanting no doubt to add further discoveries about it in future.  Best Regards, John.

"""" Recent edit to Dalrymple-Hay Nature Reserve[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dalrymple-Hay Nature Reserve, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! MrBill3 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

""""" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.27.252 (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. A quick tip, place new comments at the bottom of the discussion (and indent). Searching for something and not finding it is not a reference. You would need to find a published source that states that fact and cite that source. There is a handy guide on referencing Help:Referencing for beginners. I agree that the fact it is not a heritage listed place doesn't need to be in the article. I tend to lean towards what something is rather than what it is not being appropriate content. That said if a published reliable source finds it noteworthy enough to mention, include with the source. In regards to paid editing, I am not sure if the "Council grant for working on the history of this place" qualifies as paid editing. If the grant is to develop Wikipedia content on the place or any form of public relations for the place, I think that would be paid editing. If it can be considered paid editing or a conflict of interest, just make sure to follow the guidelines. I don't think you will have a problem getting requested edits made if they are historical, accurate and referenced. Hope you are having fun here at WP and decide to stick around. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Banque de l'Union Haitienne edits

Hello,

My name is Ariel Leveque, the Marketing Director at the bank. I have been trying to update the page based on the information provided on our website www.buh.ht. Every time I do so, I get a message saying my edits were deleted. This is pretty annoying and the wikipedia edit instuctions are not user friendly.

What is it exactly I should do in order to save updates?

Please advise.

Thanks,

Atl06 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The statement above indicates a clear conflict of interest and probably paid editing. Please see the policy linked to and follow the instructions there. MrBill3 (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FunkyLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FunkyLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

TJ Yates page

I did forget to link the source from the local newspaper today. My apologies & Merry Christmas. 23:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.227.230 (talk)

Edits to Lafayette, Louisiana page

Director of Online Engagement for the city of Lafayette. I attempted to clarify the URLS on the webpage. The main URL for the city should direct toward LafayetteTravel.com, which is the website for our local Convention and Visitors Commission. While the current webpage is correct for the city government, I attempted to clarify the two URLs in the hopes that’s visitors would find the correct website, while locals would still be able to find the webpage for local government proceedings.

Can you please explain why this was reverted and what can be done to ensure future edits aren’t undone? Greatly appreciate the feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafayette Travel (talk • contribs) 08:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 22:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Harvard Girl.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 07:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

Are you a lobbist? How much are they paying you?

You need to stop being so bias and prejudicial and stick to the facts, how much does the liberal media junkies pay you? Bradleyalans (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Joe GN Garcia Wikipedia Page

Hello there,

I am writing in regards to Dr. Joe GN Garcia's Wikipedia page in hopes that you can help me fix it. I recently noticed that there are a couple of error messages at the top of the page and need help fixing them. 1. There is an error because I made some of the changes (I am his admin and relatively new to the Wiki world and I didn't realize that you can't edit someone's page if you are associated with him) and an error saying that is looks like there is an advertisement on the page. I don't know what they are referring to but hoping you may be able to help.

Any help you could offer would be appreciated. Beckilady — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckilady (talk • contribs) 22:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Please see the WikiPedia Conflict of Interest policy. Thanks. MrBill3 (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing citation styles

In regard to your edits at Henry Perrine, the content guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources says:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

While I believe that substituting {{sfn}} formatting for <ref></ref>, by itself, is acceptable, I also believe that noticeable changes to how citations and references appear to the reader violate the guideline. I just ask that you keep the guideline in mind. - Donald Albury 16:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Greetings Donald Albury and thank you for your contributions to WP. It seems we share an interest in improving WP's coverage of Florida and her history. You have made substantial and significant contributions in this area, thank you. I would like our interactions to be collegial and cooperative.

The changes I made provided links to the associated reference for the short cites. I think if you look at the article before my edits and after you will find the fundamental rule of WP which takes priority has been followed. It is (in my opinion) a more readable article, the references are clearer. Noting the verification needed tag and unable to find the cited article, I am working to verify the content of the article from the other sources and find sources to improve the article or verify the questioned content. Other than supposing my edits were "for the sole purpose of converting..." what objections would you have to my edits? Do you feel the earlier version was more readable, the previous format of the citations more clear? Changing how citations and references appear as a matter of personal preference would violate the guideline; however the changes I made were to improve readability and clarity. If you feel I have not succeeded in that please let me know and suggest what you think would improve the article.

I wonder why this has risen to the level of concern on your part to warrant the above message. I have a substantial editing history and make note of verifying and working on references on this page.

Best. MrBill3 (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I was irritated at seeing that the changes were made without any attempt to obtain input on the talk page. I don't agree that any improvement was worth ignoring the guidelines. As I said, I'm not going to revert, but we have guidelines like WP:CITEVAR to smooth the process of community editing. - Donald Albury 15:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for not posting on talk. The verification needed tag and the only comment on talk are from 8 years ago. I didn't see much editing activity. I assumed no one was actively working on the article. I don't assert that any improvement is worth ignoring the guidelines. I do assert that boldly editing to make the citations more clear, particularly as a part of verification (foundational) is acceptable. However, if you think my edits did not improve the article by all means let me know, we can figure out something that is clear and useful for the reader and that we both agree on. Moving this discussion to the talk page of the article. Thanks for your contributions and for taking the time to let me know what your objections are. Best.MrBill3 (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

sorry

hi mr bill, sorry i was just having a joke.... i won't do it again i promise! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.42.110 (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from WP:STiki!

		The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, MrBill3! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

False Removal of Information on Gabbie Hanna Page

You removed information from the page Gabbie Hanna stating that it was unsourced. It was sourced. There were references in the text. You changed a section where I added the fact she released her merchandise. However, you reverted it back to something false yourself as her merch has sense been released. The section about the book was already there and already sourced I just reworded it to make it make more sense.

The reason for your revert edit is false as there was sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoltronUniverse (talk • contribs) 18:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A link to a product line is not a reference it is Spam. Find Reliable Sources publishing this information and you can a cite a reference. The existing references in an article have been found to support the existing content. If you want to add new content specify what reference supports that content. The appropriate place for this discussion is Talk:Gabbie Hanna, where the issue of Due Weight.MrBill3 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Paul Pierce

Hi, I'm just inquiring as to why you reverted my edit on Paul Pierce concerning the nickname section. Feel free to contact me on my talk page. -TsarNicholasTheSecond — Preceding unsigned comment added by TsarNicholasTheSecond (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary stated, censoring profanity. That is not how WP operates. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. MrBill3 (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It also directly states in the Wikipedia censorship guidelines that "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view)." As far as I know, Paul Pierce is a neutral article, and content containing explicit or vulgar language is not accepted within the boundaries of censorship. TsarNicholasTheSecond (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@TsarNicholasTheSecond: what policies are you asserting the content violates? Your statement, "content containing explicit or vulgar language is not accepted within the boundaries of censorship" is not accurate, please take some time to read and understand the policies and guidelines. Please note the content you were removing was a DIRECT QUOTE. We do not edit or alter direct quotations on WP. There is no "boundaries of censorship" on WP and there is no prohibition of "explicit or vulgar language". Best. MrBill3 (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga

Could you take a look at this article again? I think it's degraded since you last looked at it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed the section making grand medical claims, but it's since been added back. Discussion:

• Talk:Sahaja_Yoga#Ad_and_MEDRS

Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

thank you for changing it.

If you think my edit was a bad idea, thank you for changing it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.249.218 (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit to Crocodile farm

The information gleamed was literally from the same source, expanding on the information provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3005:1400:1600:84D4:A7DA:5999:73E1 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Revert to White phosphorus munitions ‎

The other user is the one trying to make a change here (additions made 23 January), I am reverting to its state prior to their changes while discussion of their edits occurs. As I have outlined on the talk page, their changes include quotations which misrepresent the source material and duplications of existing content. I'm awaiting their reply regarding this. Bones Jones (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I see there is ongoing discussion on talk. It would at a glance seem the proposed content is sourced and meets p&g. However the article requires careful discussion and your input on talk seems focused on the content and the article. If I have any further input I will do so at the talk page of the article. MrBill3 (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Um, should perhaps point out BRD in this case says we go for the revision before the additions while they are being discussed. In particular, misquoting Rodgers (by quoting a journalist's summary as if it were his own words) is a potential BLP violation and should not be left up without consensus. Bones Jones (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

As I noted on a page, the statement attributed to Rodgers is not a quote: rather, it is a paraphrasing of a quote by a journalist. Rodgers did not say those words, or rather, said words between them that alter their meaning significantly. Bones Jones (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Just a friendly reminder, because you already know this, but I've ran across several Florida related articles where you've updated references, like nris and forgot to define the reference in the references section. I've fixed all the ones I ran across. Thanks! Isaidnoway (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

El_C 18:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Please protect B N S D Shiksha Niketan page

Sir please provide protection for B N S D Shiksha Niketan because every person provide wrong information there and this is very harmful. Patkar Ji (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited All Saints Episcopal Church (Portsmouth, Ohio), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Niche and Rector (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Reiki dispute resolution

== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding NIH definition. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Needs Work".The discussion is about the topic Reiki. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Pamxz (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bert and Fay Havens House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lake Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Publisher: National Park Service vs. National Archives

Hi, I am very glad to see numerous edits by you popping up in my notices and/or my watchlist, where you have been adding NRHP nomination document references and expanding NRHP articles. I see in some cases like this edit for Bert and Fay Havens House you've added the NRHP nom doc made available by the National Park Service (NPS). In general usage we all have been saying that the publisher for that is the National Park Service, as you did. In some other cases, such as this edit for Ebenezer Andrews House and others in Ohio where the NPS has not made NRHP docs available, you found the newly (or relatively newly) available National Archives versions. I would say those are published by the National Archives, which I believe is not part of the National Park Service. That's how I set up example references in various places with wp:NRHPHELP resource. It's a small point in the grand scheme (it is way more important that a good source is being added), but when the source is the National Archives could you give them credit as publisher, going forward?

Or, if you are deliberately trying to make a point that in your opinion the NPS can be regarded as the publisher, could we cooperate in having a central discussion about the technically right thing to do? In my usage, and enshrined in wp:NRHPHELP and/or wp:NRHPFAQ directions, when a state system provides the document, I term the state as the publisher, because it made the document available, etc. Perhaps some could feel differently because it is a filled out NPS form that was produced, or perhaps one might assume that the NPS provided (published?) the forms to the National Archive? (But in fact I think Ohio and Louisiana and other states likely provided the documents to the National Archive for it to publish them.)

Eiter way, thanks for doing what you do! --Doncram (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Doncram. I suppose I will head over to the appropriate talk page and make my case but I think it is pretty solid.

The NRHP nomination forms are submitted to NPS and then edited until a decision is made. The nomination form then becomes an inventory form and is published by the NPS, this is done in several ways including as an announcement in the Federal Register and some other official government publications/documents. So the nomination form for a registered property becomes an official US government publication of the NPS. I believe it is even the technical term that it is published in the National Register.

Convenience copies archived or stored and provided on the web are copies of an officially published document (or it's draft). Neither the NARA nor the State Historical Societies are the publishers of the document in an official sense.

I think the issue you raise can be addressed using the via parameter of the cite web template. In fact I think that is exactly the purpose. Let me know if this seems like the way to go. If we agree it should go to the right talk page etc.

Thanks for your collaboration and contributions. MrBill3 (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your reply, and then yes i think it should be discussed centrally. I'd like to attract at least some attention from non-regular-NRHP-editors, and after browsing a bit in the Manual of Style and elsewhere, I think that Help talk:Citation Style 1 is the right place. One is redirected to there if one tries to go to Template talk:Cite web or Template talk:Cite report. By the way I think "cite report" is what we should be using rather than "cite web", technically, for NRHP nomination docs. This came up several months ago and is likely not reflected in NRHPHELP or elsewhere, but I would now use "cite report" everywhere. I have not been aware of the via= parameter, by the way, but I don't see how it could specifically help.

Could you please clarify, here, with an example or two, how you think that the via= parameter could be used?

About how the terms are used, I do think that each new NRHP listing is indeed announced in the Federal Register, I suppose after the Keeper of the Register signs approval of the listing (i.e. accepts it), but that does not mean the NRHP nomination document is published. I regard the nomination document as a report that is filed, yes, and it is true any one can make a request to the National Register to get a copy of the file. But I don't say it is published by the NPS unless the NPS clearly publishes it, i.e. by putting it forward to the public by making it available online. For Ohio, Missouri, New York, and various other states the NRHP document has generally not been supplied to the public by the NPS, but rather has been made available online by the state or a specific department or agency of the state or an associated state historical society or other body; I call that publication by the state or department or agency or society. In many cases when a nomination is provided by multiple sources, the versions provided are somewhat different. E.g. whether the document is stamped by the state or not; or whether the photos submitted with an NRHP application are included or not in the same PDF or in a separate PDF or not at all; or whether a PDF provided includes copies of correspondence between state and NPS or whatever.

By the way, there is a related question, of how we should give links to multiple URLs where identical or similar versions of the same NRHP document are available, and how to indicate any differences.

I would like to open a central discussion myself at Help talk:Citation Style 1 if you are okay with that, and give notice of the discussion at wt:NRHP, but first could we cover whatever you mean about the via parameter? --Doncram (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is an example of the via parameter in cite web.

{{cite web|url= https://catalog.archives.gov/id/71986910 |title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Ebenezer Andrews House |publisher=[[National Park Service]] |work=[[National Register of Historic Places]] |location=[[Washington, D.C.]], [[United States|USA]] |last=Giffen |first=Daniel H. |date= 25 Jul 1974 |accessdate= 22 Feb 2020 |via= [[National Archives and Records Administration]]}}

yields:

Giffen, Daniel H. (25 Jul 1974). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Ebenezer Andrews House". National Register of Historic Places. Washington, D.C., USA: National Park Service. Retrieved 22 Feb 2020 – via National Archives and Records Administration.

@Doncram: please give an example of the what you propose. I think that will help us be clear when discussing in a different forum. I will add to or clarify my thoughts.

1. I believe a nomination form once the property is entered into the register becomes a part of the National Register of Historic Places which is published by the National Park Service.

2. The Keeper of the Register exercises editorial oversight in that nominations are revised until accepted then signed by the keeper at which point they are final.

3. If we are citing the National Register of Historic Places it is only appropriate to cite the publisher as the National Park Service. The existing standard cites the nomination as a title within a work, the work being the National Register.

By all means I welcome you to open a discussion in the appropriate forum. Personally I'd like to give my opinion then step back from discussion and if a consensus emerges just follow it. I prefer to focus my wiki time on working on content, but value the process and community. That said, you have raised an excellent point regarding links to multiple urls. In particular for different versions. I have noticed that not all copies at state historical societies are the final copy. In this case I believe the publisher is the State Preservation Officer of the state where the property is. Although nomination forms can be filled out by anyone, only the SPO for the state can nominate a property. The nomination form submitted to the NRHP is edited and signed by the SPO. For a nomination that does not bear the state stamp/seal/signature I think that is published by the website making it available as it has not passed through editorial oversight on state or federal level and is not an official published document. I also think if it is not signed by the keeper we should not list the source as the National Register. The NARA PDFs seem to include the photos submitted, perhaps that could be mentioned in the citation but it's not necessary. Likewise additional content, if one isn't citing the additional correspondence there is no need to put it in the citation. When they are separate PDFs at NRHP a few words for the additional link are needed for explanation and provide an opportunity to credit the creator, and specify the date. I think the link to the images should be included. My personal preference would be to cite the NRHP if available, next NARA, then state societies and others. I haven't encountered a nomination available at NRHP that there was a more complete copy (pix) elsewhere, but if I did I would cite the source with the most content (as long as it included the nomination as entered into the register).

Well I hope this is useful in improving the encyclopedia. It's a shame WP:NRHP isn't more active, we should be having this conversation somewhere over there and hearing from others with similar editing interests. By all means open a discussion anywhere you think it would be of interest, useful, appropriate etc. Feel free to quote, paraphrase, mention anything I've said in this discussion if it helps present a complete, clear, concise question. I am glad you appreciate the editing I have been doing in NRHP. My goal is to inspire and provide the source. There is MUCH MORE that can be pulled from most nominations and I INVITE YOU and anyone you might encourage to dive in and add some content.

Thank you for your contributions and for the collaborative effort. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saint Paul's Episcopal Church (Columbus, Ohio), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Source for many Ohio NRHP articles

Hi, i noticed your edits at Masonic Temple Building (Zanesville, Ohio), in which you apparently tried to add NRHP nomination document sourcing, then realized it wasn't available from the National Park Service after all. Please see wp:NRHPHELP#Ohio about using an Ohio-specific source, the Ohio Historical Places Dictionary. My quick look shows that on its page 1100 is coverage of this building! --Doncram (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Greets, Thanks so much. I messed that page up by adding the nomination for another Masonic Temple on the NHRP in Ohio (there are quite a few. Thanks for the pointer to the useful wp page and the specific ref. I was able to find the nomination for the Masonic Temple Building in Zanesville, Ohio and am working from that. I will keep these additional resources laid out in the project in mind for additional references. MrBill3 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

U r doing well with finding those NRHP docs from National Archives. Ohio has long (many many years) been depressing, due to general non-availability of docs, as if the author of that private OHPD book was paying off the state of Ohio to keep her monopoly on info (her book is just NRHP docs briefly summarized, up to a certain date). :( Glad to see u breaking it. --Doncram (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed on the NRHP research page they stated all docs up to 2012 are at NARA. They also state that NARA is the permanent home of their records and all will be there at some time in the future. I wonder if they are going to maintain the links? If not we are going to need some bot maker when that happens. I have noticed in looking at quite a few noms that the copy at the National Register is not final (static) after being signed. I have seen annotations on noms I have accessed via NRHP. Things that make you go hmmm. MrBill3 (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

John Vaughan House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fenestration

Vernal Presbyterian Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Belfry

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)