User talk:General Ization/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Tyler Hansbrough

Hi there!

You deleted my post about my cousin marrying Tyler Hansbrough. How do I prove this to you? This is a picture from their rehearsal dinner and they were married last saturday.

https://instagram.com/p/z-rgjUSpKb/?modal=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Live2luvNCgirl (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Live2luvNCgirl: Apparently you didn't read the notices I posted on your Talk page. Please do. You don't need to prove it to me, you need to make it verifiable by anyone reading the article. Instagram is not a reliable source. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

DIONNA MARIE DAL MONTE

Hi, I spent 2 hours looking for links in internet about Dionna Marie Dal Monte. I found 3 National TV Programm, 2 Interviews on GQ, Links to IMDB, Links to SAG AFTRA, Links to everywhere.... the page was deleted without even an advice. Do I have to think that Wikipedia USA is like Wikipedia Italy where there are only characters liked by left wing and Dionna is not allowed because of far right ideals? Seems so... You told me there were no sources, I published them all. Marky Ramone speakin bout Dionna, David Peel and Dionna, David Peel guitar player of Dionna, Dionna and Death SS, Dionna in Summer of Sam, Dionna in Internet Movie Data Base... I reported all the links, is not enough being subscribed to SAG AFTRA, having takin part in 5 movies, havin recorded 1 cd with a rockstar (Marky Ramone), one with another rockstar (David Peel), having played for two years as guitar player at only 15 yo of LES PAUL and being the youngest actress ever written to SAG AFTRA? I demand that the page DIONNA MARIE DAL MONTE goes back on line, thanks. --Oramorph (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

See the instructions at Dionna marie dal monte. The advice was here on your Talk page, and included instructions for contesting the nomination, and/or requesting undeletion. In either case, the decision is made by an administrator. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Healing & Prophetic Ministries

Dwpaul the information on the page is incorrect it was edited a year ago and I would like for it to be deleted Rant234 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The entire article is nominated for deletion, since it appears to be a corrupted copy of another article and has no supporting references (the references it has all pertain to the article it was copied from). Dwpaul ^Talk 20:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

@Acroterion: Thanks for the revdels (though I wasn't planning to ask for them, I thought it was curious and worrisome that he went to that trouble), and regrets that the gentleman couldn't control himself. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Refrence

Hello I am Titaniumman23, You reverted my changes so i reverted but put in some more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titaniumman23 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

As requested... I think you somehow reinserted Guy's sig here, whilst trying to return it to its proper place. No worries - happens to us all. Yunshui 雲水 14:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Tom Cotton - Iran letter

Dear Dwpaul - I strongly disagree with the way in which you've edited the portion of Tom Cotton's entry pertaining to the Iran letter. You've washed out a factual statement by including hedge words: "questions" were raised, "whether" it constituted a flawed interpretation of the Treaty Clause. The article cited quotes the Congressional Research Service in saying:

"...according to a 2001 Congressional Research Service Report, "it is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States.""

This is a factual statement and the official government position. It's not a he says/she says situation - the letter got it wrong and Wikipedia shouldn't be trying wash out political facts for the sake of political correctness.

Please revert to the original wording, or rewrite the rewrite so it accurately reflects the documented error.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.138.183 (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

A detailed analysis of the assertions in the letter, including the CRS statement, can and perhaps should certainly appear somewhere. It should not appear on a biographical article about one of the signatories to the letter (albeit the supposed author of it), as it is out of scope there. See my comments on the Talk page for that article. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this has nothing to do with "political correctness", and your assumption that it does fails to assume good faith. It has to do with Wikipedia's policies on Biography of living persons and the scope of biographical articles here (as well as, simply, the best place to go into this kind of analysis of a letter from Congress to a foreign power). Dwpaul ^Talk 15:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And indeed, "questions" were raised "whether" (at the source given). Unless you are an expert on the Constitution (and technically not even then), neither you nor I should be stating as fact that an error was made in the letter without attributing that fact to an expert source, which would get us back into excessive detail for this article. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial reversion

I think there was just an issue with a system time lag there. I think you may have reverted ahead of me by a few seconds. I totally agree with the revert. In my original note rejecting I stated "accepted is the historical consensual reality. Quoted is value-laden and borders on denialist terminology". Not the exact wording but pretty close to my quickly typed rejection summary. Just thought I would drop you a note to clarify my position. Regards! Irondome (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Irondome: Actually, I didn't revert anything. I just noted that you had reverted the (appropriate) reversion by another editor and wondered if you realized it. WHen I saw you did, I removed my message for you. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahh. That explains the confusion. Well, sorted now. Cheers. Irondome (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I would like to take back that comment about anti-Semitism being religionism. Apparently, some forms of anti-Semitism ARE racist - particularly if they involve complaints about "inbreeding", which links the bigotry to heritage rather than religion. 208.84.253.254 (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The comment has been removed. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Broward County Transit

Hi Dwpaul. Please restore the page, as I am an employee of Broward County Transit, attempting to update content about the agency on this page. The point of reference going forward will be our website at Broward.org/BCT. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broward County Transit (talk • contribs) 20:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Broward County Transit: See the responses on your Talk page. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Its a joke

Ur seriously changing back i put twotime instead of two-time ur kidding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah181 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Noah181: The edit I reverted at Martin St. Louis, though small, was nevertheless damaging to the article and continued a pattern of vandalism after you had twice been warned to stop. If you continue this behavior you will be blocked from editing. If you find this funny, you are the only one. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

How did u know i was warned and how didnu know what i changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah181 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Noah181: Every change you make to the encyclopedia and every comment on your Talk page is available to other Wikipedia editors to view. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

isin.org links

There has been a rash of single purpose accounts created with the sole purpose of adding this link as a "reference" in various articles.

• • Cusip
  • Junchow
  • Kbleader
  • Galaxysecurities
  • Goldmanstonesec
  • 24.19.54.29
  • 71.212.2.78

Those are just the ones I have caught so far. Helpsome (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Helpsome: OK, gotcha. It seems like it could be a valid source for the right article(s), but I'll let you handle. Thanks. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to argue with you, merely explain my action. If you think the one you reverted is a valid reference that's fine. Helpsome (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems like ISO 6166 and International Securities Identification Number might be reasonable places for this to appear as a ref, since they both pertain directly to the standard supported by ISIN.org. Not sure about the others. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

About the article of Hellenes

Hello. In the article of Hellenes the reliable source that proves that we are 17.000.000 Hellenes all over the world is not found. We are more than 20.000.000 Hellenes all over the world but when I find the source I will prove it.

Epavli1500 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:BURDEN. Even if the source used by a previous editor is out of date and/or cannot be found, you must support your edits by citing reliable sources. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Daryl Dixon

It was a prank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoekat4712 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Zoekat4712: Yes, and you have now been warned that we do not tolerate pranks that include vandalising articles here. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Occupation of Mecca

Occupation of Mecca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He Dwpaul, aljaber.h here and you said that I forgot to put citations. I didn't put them because I know this and I am a muslim so I know about these stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljaber.h (talk • contribs) 14:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Aljaber.h: What you and or other Muslims may or may not know is not the issue. Please see Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability, citations, and WP:BURDEN. Unsourced information, as in this case, will be removed. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Aljaber.h: Also please note that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself. Please see reliable sources. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Trouble with user

Hey Dwpaul, first off, thanks for this editt. I've been dealing with this user and they just don't understand why what they added to the TODAY article can't be there, and now they are mad and removing them from the GMA and CBS This Morning articles. I and IPadPerson have warned the user for edit warring, and I stopped at 3 at the TODAY article and don't plan to revert any of their edits until at least tomorrow afternoon (Central time). It is frustrating, and I've even told them I might take them to a noticeboard (which is the main reason I've stopped reverting their edits). I don't know if you can get it across to them (probably not), but I hope they end soon. Corky | Chat? 02:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, I never even gave it a thought about Morningtv13. Thanks for that, too! Corky | Chat? 02:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They are (I believe) a sockpuppet of Morningtv13, see the SPI I just opened, please review the master's editing history and if you agree on the behavioral evidence possibly contribute to comments there in support of checkuser. Thanks. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Mornigtv13 was definitely the one who was going after Sandy Hill back in November when me and another user went after them for that. I'll comment in favor for a CU. Corky | Chat? 02:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Claremont McKenna College

Hey, why did you revert my change to CMC's article? On their 2014-15 fact sheet, it says their campus size is 69 acres; why are you citing this as a source and undoing my work when you're contradicting official information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor696969696969 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 7 April 2015‎ (UTC)

@Editor696969696969: Look closely, and you'll see that what I actually did is move the citation you supplied out of the middle of the {{convert}} template to the end of the template, where it belongs. I also inadvertently changed the number back to 50 in reverting your edit, but have now updated it to agree with the cited source. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Ok, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor696969696969 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I

I'm sorry, I'm new and I just really wanted to know how fast people like you would respond. You did really quickly, and that makes me really happy. Thanks for brightening up my day! Cheers!

hi, re: my

hi,

this is my first time doing this....

you can "google" my name under: mark behar bodyguard, where you'll find several articales regarding this & myself.

also, you can even go to the best & most valid place to confirm this on: www.imdb.com & search (ME) *mark Behar for validation.

thanks & hopefully you will see & restore my submission.

thanks again- (65.9.82.148 (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)).

@65.9.82.148: If you are Mark Behar, you should not be adding anything about yourself to Wikipedia. See WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello Dwpaul,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
• Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Referenced book on Amish

Hi, I see you reverted my reversion. I seriously doubt the book exists. I do not know everything Pathway ever published, but cannot ever remember such a title referenced in all my Amish/Anabaptist studies. Since it was an anonymous edit, and an online search found absolutely no reference to the title or the author (in reference to being an author), I assumed, and still do, that the edit was vandalism. A 555-page book published by Pathway on the topic seems dubious at best. But I am open to be corrected. Mikeatnip (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mikeatnip: You're right to be skeptical, I am a bit as well, but I wanted to be clear that to my knowledge there is no requirement on Wikipedia that a source be available or even mentioned online. I would feel better if they had not claimed 555 pages, because I suspect if it exists it is more like a pamphlet than a book. Until we can truly rule it out, AGF requires that we assume the book/pamphlet/whatever exists. Also, check and you'll see that you did not revert the addition of the book, just a 1-character correction made by the OP. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

My goof on the reverting. Of the pages I watch, the Amish page gets more vandalism than all the others put together. I don't know why. I will check into the book's existence further; I know David Bercot who sells Pathway's books online. If the book is indeed an actual title, I would doubt its need to be on the list. If it was notable, somebody would at least cite it somewhere in a paper. Mikeatnip (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the book has been added to the bibliography, not as a citation; so the standard of proof that it exists is, I think, somewhat less, and its inclusion doesn't present a risk of an apparent validation of misinformation. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the book, as I asked the distributor about it and he told me that such a book does not exist. That said, the possibility exists of it being out of print and he not knowing anything about it. For my part, I think someone would need to prove it does exist with some reference to it in a monograph etc before adding it back in. Thanks. Mikeatnip (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mikeatnip: Understood, thanks for taking the time to research. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Article Flow and Length

Hi Paul - if an article is too big and some parts are just in the wrong place (but do belong in a different section). Is there a way to split into sub-pages or move between sections without vandalism? In particular, in a detailed article how much has to be repeated at length in the introduction. I've made some comments but most of the talk on the page has died down. I admit, it is a controversial issue (less so now), it would just be really good to have it flow for the purposes of a encyclopaedia entry. In some places it seems that the common ground is looked over when POV is put from both sides - but there is common ground! My other question, and no doubt there is a detailed policy on this but perhaps you can give me your perspective: does any detail even with the most indirect relevance have to remain on a page no matter how remote? For example, if there is a sentence with a reference, and that reference indeed supports the proposition however the proposition itself is just distracting or perhaps should just have its own page.

I want to contribute. I want to do it properly. I do believe that the article can flow well and be readable whilst accommodating the different positions on a contentious issue.

Thank you for your consideration 131.111.141.163 (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"American" discussion on T:MP

I just wanted to say for the record that this was a non-admin closure. I am not an administrator. Cheers! Isa (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

Stuckist photographers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm sorry what do you mean by "Don't add commentary before lead, speak in the editorial voice as to how readers should think about the subject. Bring this up on Talk page"? Thanks. Leveller1980

@Leveller1980: I mean that you shouldn't add commentary to an article concerning how other editors and/or readers should think about the subject, as you did here. Anything written in the article space is in the voice of the encyclopedia, not your voice, so what you add to that space should not include your opinions about how others should think or write about the subject. If you have suggestions to improve the article, that's what its Talk page is for. And nothing should ever be added before the lead. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Karlolmetz

Hi

OK - What should my user page say?

Karl

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlkolmetz (talk • contribs) 00:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Karlkolmetz: Please a) always begin a new section when you start a new discussion on a Talk page (your question has nothing go do with Stuckist photographers, discussed above) and b) remember to always sign and timestamp your comments by typing four tildes ( ~~~~) – not four backticks (````) – after your comments. See WP:User pages for a discussion of user pages and their purpose. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 00:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Karlkolmetz: What you had on your user page was fine (I was not the editor who marked it for deletion), provided that you understand that your user page is not a profile to direct other, off-Wiki people to (a la LinkedIn), nor a Web page to host your resume. You might communicate your intent (if I understand it correctly) by writing at the top of the page "For other Wikipedia editors who may be interested in knowing my background and qualifications to write about xxxx:". Assuming you will mostly or exclusively be editing articles related to your field, you are correct that this could be useful information to share. However, do be aware that, while your experience and training will be valuable as an editor, decisions about Wikipedia articles here are made by consensus, and we do not automatically recognize any statement concerning seniority or education as giving anyone more or less credibility as an editor. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 01:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration

List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Show facts or stop altering wikipedia posts.

You can not remove any entity unless you show facts for doing so. Now you've done nothing and only done it on subjective decisions.

"I dont think its so fast, might be wrong" is not enough evidence when there already is evidence for it doing 2,35 seconds 0-60mph from a known and credible source that is the source for 10 out of the 21 on this very same list.

If you think the source is wrong, start a discussion and you'll have to prove that "Performance Index Winter '12/'13 Edition", and the old '93 company, Motorcycle Consumer News & Bowtie Magazines, are wrong in their doings.

But by doing so you are voiding 10 out of 21 on the list.

When you dont have any constructive criticism, stop altering things.

Next time you do it, I'll have to report you for not being in the interest of Wikipedia, and of course altering wikipedia with no source or evidence, which is what wikipedia is against the most.

This information will be publicly available for anybody to see on your page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.198.72.162 (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@80.198.72.162: I have no idea what you're going on about. I have never edited the article in question, so you seem to have misdirected your comments to me. I will say, however, that the tone of your message, aside from being misdirected, is completely inappropriate. Please review Assume good faith carefully, as well as Civility. If I see you addressing other editors in the future as you did me here, I will bring the matter up at WP:AN/I, which is where such complaints about other editors should be be made.

Your claim that "You can not remove any entity unless you show facts for doing so" is incorrect. You have it precisely backwards. Any editor may remove or revert statements from an article that are not supported by citations of reliable sources, hence not verifiable. The editor removing or reverting does not need to prove that the statements are false or incorrect, only that they are not properly and reliably sourced. The burden is on the editor who inserts information to show that it is factual and accurate, not on the editor who removes it/reverts it to a previous version (even if the previous version was unsourced) to prove that it is not.

Also, if multiple reliable sources disagree, the fact that a source exists that makes a claim unsupported or contradicted by the majority of sources cannot justify the use of that dissenting source to make the claim in a Wikipedia article. In this situation, we must consider the aggregate of available sources to weigh the reliability of any one source.

Lastly, please read Consensus, which is how decisions are made here — not through imperious directives, threats and tendentious editing.

And by the way, every Talk page comment on Wikipedia is available "for anybody to see" — there is no need to point this out to other editors. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 02:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

So much hate, grudge and bitterness in your post.

Got directed to this page by Dennis Bratland, don't know why, but got here from his private message.

"Also, if multiple reliable sources disagree, the fact that a source exists that makes a claim unsupported or contradicted by the majority of sources cannot justify the use of that dissenting source to make the claim in a Wikipedia article." Exactly, if there's multiple sources, then put it up on the page so everybody can see it. Now there are only 1 source, and that is the source being used. "I once saw an article in this magazine from 1981 where I think it said XX seconds" is not a reliable source.

"You can not remove any entity unless you show facts for doing so" - that is totally correct what was written. He removed an entity, where there was 1 source to it, to a new place with 0 sources.

"The editor removing or reverting does not need to prove that the statements are false or incorrect"-dwpaul - exactly, that was what was done, reverted it back to the state with 1 source to it, from a state with 0 sources.

You are not sitting on the fence, learn the idiom and come back when you understand what the purpose of Wikipedia is, and what it is not.

Your post is filled with hatred, antagonism, rancorousness, vexation and pique.

You are acting like you're sitting in an ivory tower, grow up, open your eyes, you are not, the people won't tolerate actions from ivory tower guys like you much longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.198.72.162 (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

And you, friend, are hereby requested to stop ranting on my Talk page concerning Wikipedia policies and procedures about which you clearly know nothing (and are apparently disinclined to learn). Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 12:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the typo on Cooper Union. It seems BMK is having a bad day today [1], lol. Thanks again. Cheers!--Cryptjohson (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No, actually, I had a lovely day.

What it seems is that you are something other than you claim to be. It's no matter, these things can't be hidden forever, and I have plenty of time. I also trust that Dwpaul sees through your transparent "divide and conquer" message. You can't on the one hand belittle me to other editors, and then claim to my face that you have nothing against me.

You really aren't very good at this, you know. BMK (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems Cryptjohson is having a bad, well, future since they are now blocked as a sockpuppet. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 03:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Durst/Jarecki settlement

I don't want to tear into your edit just yet, but the citations we're using in Robert Durst don't support the notion that Jarecki necessarily confirmed/conceded anything about his sources — it was the New York Times' Charles V. Bagli, after all, who reported back in March that Jarecki had full access to Durst's papers, which included the videotapes (which were being stored in Campbell Hall, New York). So did Douglas Durst just fall back on that, or did he actually "settle" with Jarecki, and get a statement from him?

Also, I'm not sure Douglas Durst actually filed a lawsuit against Jarecki — it was a "petition" that was being heard by the Supreme Court of New York, I believe — so I have used the more general term " litigation". Your account may well be correct, but it needs another source to support it as it is written. I'm hoping the New York Times, with its own reporter very much in the thick of it, will have its own article on this soon. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"The Post has learned his brother, real estate giant Douglas Durst, settled a lawsuit against filmmaker Andrew Jarecki, confirming that Robert was the source of leaked materials about the family for 'The Jinx,' the HBO documentary that led to the accused killer’s recent arrest." [2] I can't see how Douglas Durst could have confirmed/conceded anything about Jarecki's sources, or that Douglas doing so would give Douglas access to any new legal remedy, so one must interpret that sentence as saying that Jarecki and/or his legal team did the confirming/conceding as an effect of the settlement. Also, Durst couldn't have settled a lawsuit against Zarecki unless he brought one. Not sure how my edit might have been a problem, but I have no problem with any improvements you or others might make. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 19:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vesuvius Dogg: Another ref. And another. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 21:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I nuanced the copy, mainly because we know that Charles V. Bagli of The New York Times was talking to Robert Durst after the first few Jinx episodes aired, and very probably Durst was Bagli's source back in March when he reported that Jarecki obtained the videotaped depositions among his papers stored with Susan Giordano in Campbell Hall, NY (to which Jarecki was given "unrestricted access"). In short, we're reading that Durst was unaware the videotaped depositions were in his papers—who would know that information but Robert Durst himself?—but in any event, we just don't know what Jarecki may or may not have confirmed to Douglas Durst as part of the settlement/withdrawal of the litigation. Was Douglas Durst ultimately able to confirm the chain of evidence by other means, the same way the reporter did? We just don't know, so I've written a conservative take, hoping there's more reporting to come and an actual statement of some sort from Jarecki. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Nuancing is good. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 01:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Add to filmography

Missing "Benny and June" from filmography Dolores "Lorry" Corsi 104.6.168.213 (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@104.6.168.213: Sorry, which article (whose filmography) are you referring to? Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 01:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the re-edit

I committed a typo when revising Sandberg's Mother's career info, which I tried to fix but it had already been reverted. Roblaw42 is "undo" happy. I think my description worked but so does yours. Either is better than the previous verbiage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.19.38 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for fixing the Tillandsia article

I'll review what was done and try to make sense of it, I'd just rather someone do it competently, and in 13 seconds, rather than my hamfisted, 90 minute method.-rudyard (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't do anything to Tillandsia recurvata; I just noticed that another editor had already reverted the most recent vandalism. If there are older changes you think are vandalism, bring them up on the article's Talk page. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 00:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

YGM

You've got mail. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Bill Maher

Hello. Why did you revert my edit on "Bill Maher"? The pronunciation /ɑːr/ is not an English standard diaphoneme (see Help:IPA_for_English). What other words use that word-finally? "Maher" rhymes with car and spar, so it's /ɑr/, correct? Wolfdog (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Could be. Your edit to this biographical article included no edit summary, and was unsourced. Present your argument on the Talk page of the article to gain consensus for the change. I'll !vote in favor, but that's only two of us. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 00:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Is that how all things, even small ones, are determined on the Bill Maher page? There was no source there to begin with, so the current pronunciation, according to this logic, already shouldn't stand. I'd be happy to write an edit summary; it just slipped my mind. Wolfdog (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not the arbiter of how "things... are determined on the Bill Maher page". I do have some thoughts, though, about Wikipedia policies. You are describing (presumably) how you have heard Bill Maher pronounce his last name, and your assertion (which could be perfectly correct) as to how it should be expressed in IPA. That is not how everyone with the last name Maher pronounces it, so the assertion that Maher pronounces it a certain way is something that should either be sourced or established as a matter of consensus, not simply changed as a consequence of original research (i.e., what you have heard). As for there being no source to begin with, see WP:BURDEN. If you add or change content, you are responsible for what you have added or changed. The fact that something you changed or replaced was unsourced to begin with doesn't relieve you of your burden, especially if someone challenges it (as I have done). Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 01:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Or you can just try making the change again. I won't revert it, having made my case about it, but I'll bet you a dollar another editor will. To save you time and trouble, I strongly recommend that you take a little time to seek consensus, as I suggested. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 01:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. My problem really wasn't about how I "have heard Bill Maher pronounce his last name," so much as the second part of that sentence I'm quoting you on: "how it should be expressed in IPA." Word-final /ɑːr/ is not standard on Wikipedia and doesn't align to IPA usage as specified on the related English-language help page. So at the risk of being naïve, I'm going to change it again; I'll happily let you give me an "I toldja so" when I fail. I appreciate your explanation. Wolfdog (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh-oh, I think I may be wrong on a technical level and the reason the IPA looked strange to me is because the current IPA template just doesn't support the rare /ɑːr/ as a single phoneme, so it's awkwardly divided into two separate ones. Oh well... Wikipedia inconsistencies confusing me. Wolfdog (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to say thanks.

Although you removed the map image that I put on the Sriracha Sauce page, you were kind about it and explained your decision. I agree with your revision.

I'm new here, and I'm learning - I appreciate you taking the time.

Best,

Srirachachacha (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Srirachachacha May 12, 2015

@Srirachachacha: You're welcome, and thanks for letting me know that you understand and for being gracious about it. It's never fun being reverted; I know, I have been also. But sometimes, in the long run, it makes for a better article. Happy editing! Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 02:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Guidance for a Beginner - Enrica Lexie case

Hi Dwpaul

You were very helpful when I first began editing a few articles. I've been working on the Enrica Lexie case page for a while. I have a strong academic interest in it and have been hoping to do two things - (1) Make it readable - it is really horrible - and this is still after I have taken so much out (2) Accommodate the contentious nature of the issue - for each issue try first to distill the consensus and then cite both sides of the ongoing arguments.

However it is still far far too long and some information is either completely tangential or is just there without relevance being explained. What is the best way to move forward with something like this? One of my issues is much of the tangential and irrelevant information is referenced (correctly) and so I have got in trouble deleting some of it. Does every single sentence with a citation have to stay? I think the POV is appropriately balanced (more or less). The issue is very contentious - there is a legitimate dispute as to some of the facts and some of the legal issues in play. However does that mean that every single argument and comment from either side on every single aspect of this multifaceted issue must be included? Also, some of the edits and talk comments from both sides are bordering on the emotional. The whole article does not flow. Things are in the wrong section. Many things are repeated, etc. I've been Wikipedia articles on equally contentious issues that are concise and readable.

I want to continue to contribute but I'm worried I've hit a brick wall. Are there perhaps some editors or moderators who are respected and have had experience in effectively doing a ground up rebuild of such a contentious page? This would be ideal. Your guidance would be appreciated.

Thank you 131.111.141.163 (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC) (also LOTScholar)

@131.111.141.163: Sorry, I realize that this is your second request of me for help on this. Candidly, I neither feel strongly enough about the subject (this might be a plus) nor feel I have the time available right now to participate or even assist in a complete rewrite of this article, the subject of which is clearly controversial. My involvement with it has been limited to reverting obvious vandalism, and this may be for the best as I could see this requiring a high level of attention and focus. Kudos to you for taking it on. You might post a request for assistance at WP:Editor assistance. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 19:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Bo Dallas Spouse

According to the Sarah Bäckman page I looked at, it say's that she's currently married to him. But I will provide a source next time when i add her back int he article. FrozenFan2 (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please. We cannot rely on the presence of a cited source on a different page. Also, please be sure it's a reliable source. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 19:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Alas, since the cited source at Sarah Bäckman for her supposed marriage to Dallas never mentions Sarah Bäckman at all, it is not a reliable source. (Even if some of the commentators at that link mention her by name, she is not mentioned in the published article at the link.) Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 20:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, and I understand what you mean. FrozenFan2 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@FrozenFan2: Here is an updated ref from the same source that names her. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 21:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ciara jackie

Please stop editing this album genre to R&B because clearly you aren't a fan and haven't heard the album IT IS A POP AND EDM album with ONE R&B song on it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csquadforever (talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Csquadforever: Please stop changing genres on the album without establishing consensus with other editors, because you clearly haven't read WP:GWARRIOR or WP:EW, the latter of which (as have now been warned multiple times) will result in your being blocked from editing. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 19:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

And so you have. If you resume this activity when your block expires, you will be blocked again. Please read both articles linked above and contribute constructively when you are again able to do so. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 19:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry

My brother did bypassing. I'm so sorry. Please, I am sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMTPOWMRLOL (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@RMTPOWMRLOL: "Your brother" apparently needs help. In any case, as long as there is any chance of your brother having access to your account, it is probable that the same unacceptable behavior will be repeated, and this is unacceptable to the project. The ability to edit Wikipedia using your account (as well as to edit your own Talk page) has been permanently disabled. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 22:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:DOLT

See the discussion at WP:ANI, the prior notices on the IP's talk page. I think this warning [3] is late and not needed. Might you consider reverting yourself? Thanks. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@JoeSperrazza: I was aware of the discussion at ANI, but what I did not see was that anyone had provided the editor the benefit of the standard warning concerning legal threats. I can't think of any reason not to inform the user of the policy, even if the information they objected to has subsequently been removed, especially since the threat was issued twice. Can you? Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 23:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What would probably be more useful than reverting the standard NLT warning is if someone would inform the editor in a friendly message on their Talk page(s) that the content they objected to has been removed. I don't see that that's been done either; just a link to the ANI discussion. That message, in combination with the standard NLT template, is probably the right balance to address the concerns mentioned at WP:DOLT. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 23:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Aztec

Wouldn't Category:States and territories established in 1325 be wrong to include as well? That's why I was including Category:1325 establishments. Would 1323 be a better example as that's the legendary year for the vision? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the Aztec, but by my reading there is no singular event that defines the beginning of the Aztec people or culture (unlike the events of 1520-21, including the smallpox epidemic, that led to the destruction of Tenochtitlan and rapidly to the end of the empire and most of its people). The establishment of Tenochtitlan was unquestionably a key event in the development of the Aztec empire, but I'd argue that the people who became the Aztec existed well prior to this and there should neither be no specific date of "establishment" for the Aztec, and that, yes, the other category is probably inappropriate here also (it is entirely appropriate at Tenochtitlan. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 23:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Let's move this to Talk:Aztec as I think that's a better place for this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 23:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown

Hi Dwpaul, in regards to a revert you did on the article, you deleted a link from Facebook showing a video and comments of Michael Brown. Although Facebook isn't a place I would personally look for sources, correct me if I'm wrong, but the video and comments seem somewhat legitimate even though the other user put the reference characters on the wrong place. [4] (N0n3up (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC))

A video found on Facebook is not a reliable source for any Wikipedia article unless the Facebook page is the official page of the subject of the article, and even then only for non-controversial information. See WP:SELFPUB. That the video and comments "seem somewhat legitimate" to you does not change the fact that we cannot know whether and how the video has been edited and/or manipulated to promote someone's agenda when it comes from a Facebook page and its original source and integrity are unclear. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 02:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. (N0n3up (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC))

Question here

What is your birth date? --182.190.240.12 (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 182 guy.

What kind of question is that? None of your business. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 15:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hayley Atwell

OK, I found a reflink (Guardian) that references the issue. Yours, Quis separabit? 00:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Yes, just saw that, was about to comment on your page, but here you are on mine. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 00:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Dornan's image

There has been a conflict over the use of the infobox image in the Jamie Dornan page, I'm hoping that a vote to choose a preferred image would settle the dispute. I am therefore writing to those editors who have ever edited Jamie Dornan page to voice their opinion in the Jamie Dornan Talk page so we can reach a consensus. I would welcome your opinion. Hzh (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Your recent editing history at Diyarbakir 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Xelophate <sup>talk to me</sup> 01:01, 30 May 2015 (BST)

@Xelophate: Really? Tell you what, friend, I invite you a) to read carefully the explanation of edit warring (as well as the explanation of tendentious editing) and then b) to bring this up immediately at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, and we'll just see how that flies. (You should never use this template unless you're prepared to follow through on your assertion.) In the meantime, there are at least two editors who challenge your contention that the Kurdish name of the city doesn't belong in the article. Let's see how the conversation shakes out. You can start by answering the question that Winner 42 posed to you on the Talk page of the article. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 01:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Steve Womack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9wHzt6gBgI you're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exaltedcyclopsedward (talk • contribs) 21:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Exaltedcyclopsedward: I'm familiar with it. Repeat the edit or anything like it and you'll be blocked from editing. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 21:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't try to delete my articles

without my concern I belong to same religion and know the fact and I write it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtazajamali (talk • contribs) 16:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Murtazajamali: I assume you're referring to this reversion, which was the reversion of an edit to an article, not the deletion of an article. See the edit summary of the reversion. I and other editors will continue to remove any content added which is not verifiable by any reader through the citation of one or more reliable sources (it doesn't matter what religion you are or what you may or may not know). A page on causes.com is not a reliable source. Dwpaul <sup>Talk</sup> 16:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Category changes

Regarding Bill Cosby: I don't really think of him as a writer, hence the category removal - I've re-added it, as I have no problem with it either way.

Jerry Seinfeld: Again, one doesn't think of him as a writer, and with one published book I might argue he's not known for it. Regarding the fact that he's a scriptwriter, I've been avoiding adding the by-century category to scriptwriters as I'm not sure if it's totally apt in that particular case, for a couple of reasons (see past debate over a category for 20th-century journalists for explanation.) I have re-added it, because I don't care either way.

James Sensenbrenner: oversight on my part. I had him mixed up with someone else, sorry. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao<sup>Che dicono a Signa?</sup><sub>Lo dicono a Signa.</sub> 02:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

John Oliver (comedian)

Hello! I happened to notice the disagreement on my watchlist. Obviously, the IP editor's belief that "English and British are the same thing" reflects gross ignorance on his/her part.

However, the use of "English", "Scottish", "Welsh" and "Northern Irish" in this context is not accidental. The matter has been debated a great deal, with no consensus that either "British" or one of those terms should be applied consistently. In general, I believe, we tend to use the more specific term ("English", in Oliver's case) in the absence of a particular reason to prefer "British". (For example, it makes sense to refer to David Cameron and Harriet Harman as "British", given their roles in UK politics. Conversely, we describe Billy Connolly as "Scottish" and Judi Dench as "English".)

We sometimes consider the subject's self-identification. In this instance, someone cherry-picked examples of Oliver referring to himself as "British", thereby ignoring the fact that he also refers to himself as "English" (a strong indication that we have no reason to avoid the label). —David Levy 23:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@David Levy: Thanks. I was thinking that there must have been some discussion of this at some time or another, but had not known quite where to look for it; appreciate the link, the summary here, and your comments on the article's Talk page. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 01:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I've rangeblocked 2602:30A:C043:5F80:0:0:0:0/64 for a month for IP hopping to genre war as well as semi-protected the article for two weeks. It can be worked out on the talk page via discussion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Rod Blagojevich

Hello there!

With respect, and to continue our edit text conversation because I am unemployed for 6 more hours, I'd like to try to change your mind about my non-defamatory change to Rod Blagojevich's article. I have a particular sensitivity to how people are labelled in their articles (certainly living ones in particular) and believe they should be as clear and descriptive as possible. Placing Mr. Blagojevich's criminal status at the bottom of his introduction does kind of constitute 'burying the lede' since it's in the third sentence and literally the last thing mentioned about him; if I were a TL;DR type or an elementary school kid I would miss it entirely.

Look, I love Blago as much as the next Democrat, but I you must admit that 'former politician' and 'served as governor' are redundant predicates and, moreover, mislead by suggesting a quiet retirement rather than impeachment. Although the difference between 'politician' and 'criminal' is particularly difficult to distinguish in the Illinois gubernatorial setting (given that 4 of the past 8 governors have done or are doing time for corruption) this regional synonymity may elude readers who hail from more than one state away from Illinois. I refer you to the WP articles for Dick Nixon (the first sentence of which includes mention of his resignation) and Chuck Manson (who is apparently not a 'former musician' despite his perfectly legitimate chops).

How about a compromise approach for the first sentence? "Rod Blagojevich was the 40th Governor of Illinois, serving from 2003 until his impeachment in 2009." Then leave the rest of the intro the same? I realize that Blago is almost certainly an inveterate self-googler and it's not like I want the guy to get too down on himself in there. Does that click?

Puckrod (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ping

@Medeis: Ping. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 00:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC) (formerly known as Dwpaul, BTW.)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar has been awarded in recognition of your tireless work residing in Columbus, Ohio and for you excellent ref desk lurking work. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hernando de Soto Article changes

You asked me to leave you a message on your talk page explaining my edits to the de Soto article. Mr. White's claims to have worked at the Richardson site are demonstrably false; as one of many archaeologists following the debate, I noted that Mr. White's filing with the Division of Historical Resources did not take place until after Dr. Boyer's work at Richardson was already published. I personally verified with the landowners of the Richardson site that Mr. White has never worked there. This appears to be a case of plagiarism or outright fraud by Mr. White, who is attempting to claim credit for work he has not done.

As to the second newspaper article Mr. White cites, it was published before the 2014 article - which essentially retracted the previous articles - was published. It creates the false appearance that the earlier article is still current, rather than having been superseded.172.56.26.87 (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You really don't need to bring this up on my Talk page. You need to bring it up on the article's Talk page, where it can be used to help achieve consensus with other knowledgeable editors (more so than me) about the changes you have been persistently making, thus far without any effort to seek consensus and thus disruptively. Also, if you are the user who also edits as Veritas20132014, I caution you that if you are now editing as an IP solely to avoid recognition of edit warring, such conscious evasion is regarded as abuse and can in fact result in both your registered account and your IP being blocked. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 02:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I had thought you meant to leave the comment on your talk page; I will be happy to do so on the article's talk page instead. And while I'm not the user you are referring to, I would note that the professional archaeological community has been highly sceptical of Mr. White's claims from the beginning and has only become more so.172.56.26.87 (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If there is a controversy about the Richardson site, as this suggests, our article should reflect and report on the controversy neutrally, not take sides and hence cherry-pick sources to support one side of the debate. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 02:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, in light of your denial of a connection to the registered user, I will remind myself to assume good faith and offer my apology for the accusation above. It simply seemed more than coincidental that your very first edits here as an IP were to reinstate that user's contested edits. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 02:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and I appreciate it. And I agree with you that Wikipedia should represent controversies neutrally - reviewing this or any other issue as a specialist in the field tends to make one assume others are familiar with specific issues when they may not be. However, in light of your recommendations, I'll post my position and some additional sources on the article's talk page and see if some consensus on the question arises. Thank you again for your help!172.56.27.167 (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

How to make a page?

Can you tell me some important tips about making a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datdicatorofstevensville (talk • contribs) 23:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see the Welcome message I left on your Talk page. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 00:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Mike Rizzo

Please stop removing the Personal Life section of Mike Rizzo's page. I know Mike and his wife personally and I assure you that everything written in that section is completely accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snark123 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't care that you know him personally. We require reliable sources for personal information in biographical articles here, verifiable by any reader. Your personal knowledge is not verifiable, and the source you provided most recently is a self-publishing site (self.gutenberg.org) hosting a copy of the subject's Wikipedia page here, which cannot be used as a reliable source. Please either provide appropriate sources or stop inserting the information in the article. See also WP:BLPPRIVACY. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 15:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please explain to me how it is controversial to say who he married, the date of his marriage, and the names of his children. That is pretty much the opposite of controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snark123 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Snark123: As previously suggested, see WP:BLPPRIVACY. And including the alleged names and birthdates of non-notable people who happen to be spouses or children of a notable person, even with sources, is always controversial, as a potential violation of their privacy. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 21:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wanna explain this?

Please do! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 19:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh... see you have reverted your edit. Never mind then, must have been a mistake. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 19:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning to IP

Can you please explain why you gave an only warning for vandalism for a spelling dispute? [5] --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 01:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No, not really, though the "Fucking leave it idiots" edit summary probably had something to do with it. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 02:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Dravidian peoples

Dravidian peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello General Ization

Ancient Dravidian people are a Beautiful black-blue hued skintone people whom are very special indeed. I think a classification known as is an excellent representation of this particular kind of people with remarkably beautiful hued skin; To be also known as "Blue Beauties"

You May google Dravidian blue-black woman, under google images for your intell and historical chic confirmation details.

Thank you, BlueDiamondLand

TY

I appreciate the heads-up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sam Berns

interesting edits, call me when you get a youtube video with over 8.882.667 hits

cheers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36m1o-tM05g — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luchador zebra (talk • contribs) 14:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it shouldn't be there. I said it needs a citation of a reliable source (and it still does). Absent that, it is likely to be removed. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 15:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:204.2.36.121

Hi. Since you provide a final warning to this user in May, I thought I'd point out to you that he/she again committed vandalism after your final warning, in case you want to block that IP, or notify an admin to do so. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Thanks, but since the IP's last edit was on June 2, this is far too stale to act on now. Let's keep an eye on the article. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 22:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Lucy Hale

Hi. The quote used in the AllMusic ref specifically says "Lucy Kate Hale" – if the website no longer says that, then the quote needs to be stricken from the AllMusic ref. But, aside from that, she was clearly credited as Lucy Kate Hale earlier in her career fairly often (e.g. Privileged), and that needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article (I've seen things like this mentioned in the lede in other articles). From what I understand, this info doesn't even need to referenced, as Hale's alt. name is clearly shown in the credits of her earlier TV appearances. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: The Allmusic Web site no longer says anything about "Lucy Kate Hale" at the link provided. You seem to be disregarding the possibility that the use of that name to refer to Lucy Hale was an error to begin with, one that has now been corrected at Allmusic.com. When you say "Hale's alt. name is clearly shown in the credits of her earlier TV appearances", you are implying that there is some reliable source that documents this. If one or more of those sources can be cited, then the name should be included. If none of them can, the name should not appear in our article. It should stay out until a source is found. Allmusic is no longer that source. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 15:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

General Ization, you may want to refer to this discussion – in it, NinjaRobotPirate says the following: "Credits in film articles are generally understood to be cited to the primary source itself." The same would obviously also be true of TV show appearances. IOW, for onscreen credits, a secondary reference is not explicitly required (otherwise, every entry in every actor's FILMOGRAPHY table would require a reference). The fact is, Lucy Hale was clearly credited as "Lucy Kate Hale" earlier in her career (e.g. Privileged, Bionic Woman, and The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2, at least). This needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article. I intend to add this back to the article in the near future (sans explicit referencing), unless there's some compelling reason shown that it shouldn't be. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, forgot – for a related example, see Joanne Whalley. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: Perhaps (though I'm not familiar with NRP's credentials to make that judgment), but this is not a film article. It is a biographical article, and as such WP:BLP applies. On something as fundamental and personal as the names someone may or may not have used in the past, any assertion we might make about names a person has used professionally or personally should be supported by reliable sources. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 18:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the point: they already are – in the credits of the two TV shows and one movie I alluded to (note how the credits are listed at the three Wikipedia articles on these), which is hard to prove without a screenshot! But movie and TV show credits themselves are generally considered to be "acceptable sourcing", as per the Talk page discussion I referenced above. In any case, this isn't a controversial addition – it's how she used to be credited. (Hint: Lucy Kate Hale redirects to Lucy Hale). Thus it needs to be mentioned in the article... Anyway, here's "verifiable source" if it makes you feel better. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Lori Alan

Dear sir, I read all the articles about Lori Alan in OTHER languages, so she was born 1966 in Potomac, Maryland. But, you have DARN right! Thanks for removing the date of birth, although! :) --178.174.243.198 (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A representative of the subject previously removed the birth date, as apparently that is the preference of the subject. Normally this would not matter, as the subject does not generally get to make these decisions if the content was sourced. However, since we have no sources for the birth date, it should not be included under our policies. If someone can locate and cite a reliable, published source, it can be added again. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 20:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Shia LaBeouf

Hey. That was important. How date you change that? He's motivated me on another level with his video. I changed it because I wanted to see that when I view his page. And you took that from me. THEWIKIMACHINE (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the Shia LaBeouf page was not created with your entertainment in mind. This is an encyclopedia, not your desktop wallpaper. Please don't repeat the edit. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 21:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)