User talk:Patapsco913/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Newbie seeking guidance on an edit of Daniel M. Ziff

Hello Patapasco913! I am new to Wikipedia and looking for some help on a page that I believe you are the original author of. As you are aware, recent attempts to edit the page were reverted but I remain interested in trying to get them properly implemented (i.e. according to Wikipedia's guidelines) because the desired edit is factual and is being pursued with only good intentions. To begin with, the citation supporting the edit is an official, public, government-issued marriage certificate, so I am unclear how the citation is inadequate support for the edit. Your suggestion that "we need a better source and it doesn't change the fact of his first marriage" is greatly appreciated but for this newbie, but I am still not sure what to do next. Thank you in advance for your help! SpartanLion (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Spartan, are you able to find a news source or public notice of the marriage? I see her name as Brianne Noelle Garcia but the name does not turn up on the internet other that college records. A marriage license is not going to be sufficient especially for living people. Sometimes we have to wait for something out there before we can edit; otherwise people would be editing what they know to be true rather than what they can demonstrate to be true. Often we are waiting for Ziff or Brianne to say something in an interview. Perhaps there is a notice of the wedding in a local paper?Patapsco913 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Patapsco913. Your clarification about the insufficiency of a marriage certificate for a living person is very helpful. It led me to find this page that further supports your guidance. At this point, I am considering two other options and would appreciate any perspective you have to offer. The first option is what you suggested: a published source, such as a news article or interview. If the news article mentions the marriage of Ziff and Brianne, I assume that will be sufficient support for updating Ziff's page with the fact that Brianne is Ziff's spouse, but will this also provide sufficient support for addressing the status of his first marriage, even if the news article does not explicitly mention the first marriage? The second option is a self-published source by the subject, with the publishing "subject" being Brianne. The guidelines lead me to believe this could be a viable path but its criteria are, understandably, subjective. Is there anything in particular that you would emphasize or caution to me about using self-published sources by the subject? Beyond these two options, if you have any other suggestions, I will gladly take them for consideration. Thank you for your help! SpartanLion (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The best route is to find a newspaper article mentioning the marriage. Sometimes there is an interview with the subject (in this case Daniel Ziff) mentioning his marriage but as he does not seem to give a lot of interviews and what we know about him is second hand, you probably won't find any. Self-published sources are a little trickier and generally are not used for biographies (they are seen as less reliable as one might tell one's own story as they want it to be told) although they can be allowed in certain circumstances (1. when you can show that the site is authored by the subject and 2. when you use it to support the opinions of the subject and not facts or opinions of others). There are all sorts of opinions on Wikipedia about when a self-published article can be used and it is a constant battle. The best path is to find a news article. If all you have is a self-published source, put up your opinion on the talk page with the source and see what others say.Patapsco913 (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

About your userpage

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively you may add {{Db-u1}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thank you. May I suggest that you create articles in your sandbox instead? - Bri (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Discalced Augustinian bishops has been nominated for discussion

Category:Discalced Augustinian bishops, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —swpb^T 21:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Phil Griggin article

Hi,

I noticed you're doing some updates to the Phil Griffin article. Just wanted to be sure you saw the Talk page, where I recently posted a proposed expanded version of the article. Talk:Phil_Griffin As a consultant to NBC News, I need to have someone independent review and approve proposed changes. Would be very appreciative if you could check it out. Happy to respond to any requests.

Best,

Ed

BC1278BC1278 (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons deletion request

Just to let you know about c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Panamá Viejo recreation at Museum.JPG. Green Giant (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

...to thank you for putting the article Jeffrey S. Buchanan into proper military shape, within hours of its creation. Not being familiar with military style I had created it hastily as I would any other biography. I was then going to post a note at the appropriate WikiProject, asking for someone to add the proper military touches, and lo and behold, you had already done it! Well done! MelanieN (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Hello, I'm Tornado chaser. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Lester Cole, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history 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. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to La La Land (film) does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Peaceray (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Judah Miller for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Judah Miller is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Woodroar (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join Women in Red

Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.25% of English Wikipedia's biographies).

Our priorities for December:

Seasonal celebrations First ladies Go local #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marian Salzman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stamford (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) 18:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi!

I see that you are very active in dioceses articles. Could you please help me with this? Thank you! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red

I'm glad to see you've become a member of Women in Red and that you would like to create articles on women in business. With all your experience writing articles on bishops, etc., you certainly have a huge amount of experience. If ever you need any help or run into problems, let me know or drop a line on the WiR talk page. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's December 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: "Seasonal celebrations" "First Ladies" "Go local!" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Divorce

The article for Craig hatkoff and Jane rosenthal said they filled for divorce that does not mean it actually happened find proof of final divorce then change it they may have reconciled or divorce but proof is needed oftherwise speculation Flamingoflorida (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I added a source that mentioned Hatkoff as her ex-husband. I included the quote.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Real deal is a blog and not well researched for personal details not reliable except about direct real estate transactions Flamingoflorida (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC) https://therealdeal.com/2017/05/04/and-cut-tribeca-film-festival-founders-drop-dakota-co-op-ask-to-29m/

Neither party said anything directly about divorce Flamingoflorida (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The Real Deal (magazine) is not a blog and is subject to the same libel laws as every other newspaper/magazine. How about we leave it at this: "Rosenthal and Hatkoff announced their divorce in 2014 after 19 years of marriage."Gould Keil, Jennifer (May 4, 2017). "Tribeca Film Fest founders slash price on Dakota pad by $10M". New York Daily News. That way it reflects the source and leaves it open enough that perhaps they reconciled.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine that is neutral Flamingoflorida (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Things in common

It seems we like the same articles any articles you want help on

This article is a conflict of interest for me Michael Recanati I left several links on the talk page can you add the info into the article

BestFlamingoflorida (talk) 07:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

New Year's resolution: Write more articles for Women in Red!

		Welcome to Women in Red's January 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: "Prisoners" New: "Fashion designers" New: "Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jane Goldman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Alfred School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, pages created, banner incorrect

Greetings, Last night I noticed that pages with {{WPBS|1- have the "-" (dash) parameter instead of the "=" (equal sign). Going forward if you can use the "=" that would be great. Thanks. P.S. I started going back thru pages that need this change but have not yet finished. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joe, I am not sure what you mean. Does this refer to the use of "-" verses "–" for dates? Patapsco913 (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, the first line of talk page banners with {{WPBS|1- create a display error.

Example with error, Talk:Giacomo Della Ratta

The first line of talk page banners should be written as {{WPBS|1=

Example, corrected, Talk:Francesco Peroschi

Sorry for any confusion. — JoeHebda • (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

cool thanks! Patapsco913 (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Goodday Patapsco913 - following up from November, 2017 today I updated these article talk pages listed below. If there are more, it would be good for you to update.

Francesco Peroschi
Giacomo Della Ratta
Giovanni Battista Spiriti
Giovanni Chinugi
Giovanni Dominico Giaconi
Giovanni Linati
Giuliano de' Medici (archbishop)
Giuseppe de Rossi (archbishop)
Ippolito Borghese (bishop)
Leonardo Grifo
Lorenzo Campeggi (bishop)
Marco Quinto Vigerio della Rovere
Michael Atul D'Rozario
Niccolò Piccolomini
Pietro Menzi
Tommaso della Testa Piccolomini

Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You created a duplicate and unnecessary page

On 25 November 2017, you created the page Astorgio Agnesi and populated it. The correct spelling of the name is Astorgio Agnensi, and there is already a more extensive page in existence (2012) than yours. His name is spelled AGNENSI in his funeral inscription in Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Vincenzo Forcelli, Le inscrizioni delle chiese di Roma Volume I (Roma 1869), p. 417 no 1587.

You should delete your incorrect page immediately.

--Vicedomino (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

"Immediately" I think you need to check your attitude. Anyhow, there are plenty of sources that list his name as Astorgio Agnesi or maybe you do not even look because you are always right. I can add more but I think this is enough to demonstrate my point.Patapsco913 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The point, dear friend, is that there are two pages on the same person, and yours is the latecomer. As to the word 'immediate', which seems to have raised your hackles, please check: WP:SPEEDY, where criterion A10 seems to fit the situation. As to your long list, what it in fact demonstrates is that many people can be careless or wrong. I repeat that his heirs spelled the name AGNENSI on his tombstone. They should know. And, by the way, I never claimed that I am always right. --Vicedomino (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Astorgio Agnesi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Astorgio Agnesi. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Astorgio Agnensi. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Astorgio Agnensi. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Woodroar (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar, I redirected the page to Astorgio Agnesi based on the above sources which use that name including the top encyclopedia in Italy, Treccani.Patapsco913 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Nate Bloom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nate Bloom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Anmccaff (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jon Feltheimer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific Palisades (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Feburary 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: "Black women" New: "Mathematicians and statisticians" New: "Geofocus: Island women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women's History Month 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons. Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative. Women's History Month 2018 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

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

Josh Levs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Albany and New York

Lauren Lyster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to World News Tonight

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

- instead of –

Hi!! I found that you created hundreds or thousands of articles with this problem. Would you help me fix them? Thanks! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

no problem. How do I locate the one’s needing fixing?Patapsco913 (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi again! Thanks for your answer. I prepared a batch for you, you just have to go to [1] and check one by one. The problem is easy to find, as it is consistently present in the lead paragraph, in the info box to the right, and in the navbox at the end of each new biographical article. Every time you correct one, you just have to press "Back" three times in your navigator and you'll be back at the batch list. I have already corrected a few scattered articles in your batch but the great majority still need correction. Let me know. Thank you! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

So did you have a chance to look at it? Regards. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I started at the bottom. I am fixing the - as well as doing a general cleanup. These were all early articles of mine.Patapsco913 (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I know. Thank you so much! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

DonePatapsco913 (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's April 2018 worldwide online editathons. Focus on: April+Further with Art+Feminism Archaeology Military history (contest) Geofocus: Indian subcontinent Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: `@wikiwomeninred` --Rosiestep (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solvay Process Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eugene Meyer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons. File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg New: "Women of the Sea" New: "Villains" New: "Women in Sports" New: "Central Eastern European women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Proposed deletion of John James (businessman)

The article John James (businessman) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NPOL

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John James (businessman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Food

Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of John James (businessman) for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm John from Idegon. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Walter Bell (businessman), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

John from Idegon (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Walter Bell (businessman)

Hello Patapsco913,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Walter Bell (businessman) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

John from Idegon (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kahane Cooperman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bethesda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in study

Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, an intern working with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please reply to this message or email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview. .

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Candace Owens

Your recent editing history at Article shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You are the one edit-warring. You posted. I reverted and now there needs to be consensus before you revert. Anyhow it is laughable that the person who is edit-warring is posting a warning on my page.Patapsco913 (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a complete and utter misuse of WP:BRD. You're mass-removing all kinds of content and changes to the Candace Owens page, which are unrelated to the reasons you present on the talk page. Furthermore, your actual reasons for removing the content have shifted, which suggests that you're not editing in good faith. You originally removed the content because you disputed the accuracy of two RS, yet it has been proven conclusively to you that what's written in the RS is 100% correct and yet you immediately reverted the text again after this was proven to you. Your edits are at this point just straight-up vandalism. You have at no point suggested tweaks to the text or even just identified parts of the text that you disagree with. You just mass-remove the whole text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Bunk. you are restoring the disputed text, adding new text, and re-arranging it so as to make it difficult to decipher. Why don't you bring up the text step-by-step on the talk page instead of shot-gunning it out there.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with anything in the text, so it's a complete and utter waste of time to bring every sentence up for review on the talk page. If you have a specific problem with a sentence, bring it up on the talk page yourself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please raise your concerns on the talk page.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joan Walsh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red June Editathons

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Berthold Hochschild, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bolivian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sonny Kahn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Real Deal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

small tags missing end tag

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. You made a series of edits (and article creations) in which you added two bullet points beginning *<small>... without a closing </small> tag, which in each article caused Multiple unclosed formatting tags and two Missing end tag lint errors. Worse than that, under the new Linter software that Wikipedia installed a few weeks ago, unclosed tags "leak" all the way to the end of the article, so everything after the two unclosed <small> tags is double-small. I am confident that this is not what you intended to contribute to Wikipedia. Would you please go to your editing history and re-edit these articles, inserting a closing </small> on each affected line? —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you for taking care of this! —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. My mistake. CheersPatapsco913 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

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

Alessandro Cesarini (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Albano

Giacopo Antonio Venier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Juan de Torquemada

Juan de Cervantes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Antonio Correr

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018 at Women in Red

Hello again from Women in Red!

July 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New: Sub-Saharan Africa Film + stage 20th-century Women Rock
Continuing: Notable women, broadly-construed!

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A page you started (Bill Miller (impresario)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Bill Miller (impresario), Patapsco913!

Wikipedia editor Kudpung just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've done some minor formatting and a slight change to the prose to accommodate it.

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Corinne Cole, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vanity Fair and Desert Sun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ennio Filonardi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albano (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Giuseppe Maria Feroni

I created a stub from one of your red links, Giuseppe Maria Feroni. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks good!Patapsco913 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

About "External links and additional sources"

Greetings, Today I noticed for WP Catholicism articles that entires are set to "small" wikicode. For better accessability it is better to use something like the following.

[[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources|{{sup|{{small|[''self-published'']}}}}]]

so that the entry is larger, and the self-published is the small portion. See article Gabriele Fiamma as an example.

While making above changes, I also moved "Subject bar" up to be ahead of "Authority control" line. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll move the authority control down. I was trying to make the text for the additional sources the same size as the text for references (which is small). I think it is an anomaly that External Links and such have large text (basically since they are just headings). They should be the same size as the references don't you think? It definitely looks better and does not over-emphasize them relative to the references.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

After "External links" there may be a succession box (optional) then "S / A / D". Subject bar / Authority control / Default sort, followed by Categories / stub notices (optional). Size of text should default and not made smaller. It helps with mobile device small screen displays, especially for people with vision handicaps.

If you think the EL text is too large, it can be discussed at MOS for possible group consensus to change. I have my own custom WP larger fontsizes & there is no diff between Ref & EL sections. It all looks the same to me. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Well there would be no way to decrease the text for External links since it is part of the body of the article and not part of the {reflist} (as "External links" or "Additional sources" are merely user-created headings just like "Biography" or "Personal life"). I still think it seems odd that the text for non-inline references is larger (viz. the main references are small and the supplemental references are large) and technically the diocese webs pages at CH and GC are there to provide the chronology for the vernacular names of the bishops. As you were putting "excessive citation" tags on many of the articles (which I get) I was trying to find an end-around and put the lists somewhere (technically they should be attached to the "before-after" area but that is not kosher. So my choices were to either put them as bullets under References or put them in a hybrid "External links and supplemental sources" section (as they are not external links since they are being used in the article for the chronology). So maybe the best route would be to have the reference text increased to the size of the text in the body of the paragraph?Patapsco913 (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Also when we add ^{[self-published source]} it seems to do more than what we want (which is to notify the reader that it is self-published) as it generates a case to be reviewed (if you hover over it actually shows "this reference citation appears to be a self-published source" seeming to indicate that it is a question if it is self-published). As we have already discussed and determined that Catholic Hierarchy is reliable, don't we want to somehow notify the reader but not create a work item for someone to review? I guess this is another question: how to we mark references that have been deemed reliable as as self-published. That is why I brought Catholic Hierarchy up for discussion since people were removing citations (leaving articles completely bare) because CH was self-published.Patapsco913 (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I will use this link> Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works" like such ^{self-published} it is more specific than verifiabile sources Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and also avoids the workload problem.Patapsco913 (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Check out this one Francesco Maria Scelloni. It will be my format going forward. What I am doing is only using the actual Latin source on top (Eubel...etc) with links to the actual page; moving the CH and GC bishop references into the body (GC only has references if a bishop has held two positions) relying more on CH since it provides the specific references it uses (which GC does not); move the diocese references to "external links and additional sources"; remove the small; and use self-published with a link to Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works; and use the following order: Portals - Authority control - Stub notices. I am slowly going through all the bishops I created.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Isn't Gcatholic self-published as well? Vicedomino deems it as such and is adding the tag.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wondering why the "[ ]" are missing around "self-published"? — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

for which one?Patapsco913 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

almost all of your updates, I don't know how far back though...So I updated Francesco Maria Scelloni for you to look at & see how much better the self-pub looks with the leading space & brackets. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

why does it need brackets?Patapsco913 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It needs brackets to indicate non-article wikilink, just like Refs & Notes.

If without brackets, use {{sup| [''self-published'']}} instead? Without the wikilink. — JoeHebda • (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Also why are you adding ^{[self-published source]} to Catholic Hierarchy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_self-published_sources_from_July_2018). You are creating a task for someone else and the last thing we need is somebody going around and deleting the references as self-published which happens (as I have created a lot of bishops). We already know it is self-published; we do not need someone to check it. They can go to the catholic-hierarchy wikipage and determine for themselves. I have created over a 1000 bishops and I can say that Cheney tracks almost perfectly with Eubel. And why remove the self-published from GCatholic like you did at Pietro Vecchia (bishop), Cesare Sperelli, Clemente Gera, Sebastiano Gentili? GCatholic is no different from Catholic Hierarchy (although Chow is a writer at Salt + Light Television).Patapsco913 (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know. You are the first person to clearly explain this to me. Thanks. — JoeHebda • (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

OK . How about this. I'll put the brackets around self-published like this ^{[self-published]} with a space before it. It will link to the self-published section (I am using the shortcut Wikipedia:SPS; and we leave the self-published on GCatholic since it is the same as Catholic Hierarchy. That way we are on the same page going forward. (see Francesco Maria Scelloni What do you think?Patapsco913 (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes - this looks like the best solution; using the same wikicode both in Ref and in EL sections, with the brackets, and for both CH and gCath. It's simpler & easier! Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, you would not use self-published sources to create articles so it wouldn't need to be tagged at all. But, may I please ask that you use the proper template at least, which is {{self-published source}} If you use the proper tag it will automatically put the article into a maintenance category so it can be fixed. But the best thing would be not to use such sources to create lots and lots and lots of articles - they should be created with non-self-published sources.