User talk:General Ization/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Can you not

Can you not remove my content on the Reference Desk? I cannot see what particular guideline I am supposed to have broken, this is a genuine question and for you to remove it and describe it as 'nonsense' is frankly quite insulting. I would have expected a website as well known as Wikipedia to present a slightlier more friendly approach to someone asking a question. Please, if you have a problem with my question, can you explain what it is because just deleting it is very rude. Panic richard (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

See your Talk page. Wikipedia, and specifically the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, is not an advice column. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Kray Twins

Kray twins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charles Salvador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jack McVitie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of the sources provided are extremely flimsy and the majority of sources used are blogs. If you try to verify a source you'll find circular sources. I have not been able to find any real historical record of the Kray Twins (despite the ridiculous claims of infamy)... or any of the fictitious characters which are directly connected with the 2014 movie "Bronson" or the new movie being made about the Kray Twins. This isn't the first time a wikipedia hoax was used to hype up a movie.

I suggest you dig a little bit deeper, try to truly verify the sources and check out the source's sources before denying it's a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.184.102 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 13 November 2014‎ (UTC)

@174.31.184.102: Considering that among the articles' references are the Web sites of the BBC, The Guardian, and the Biography Channel, it would have to be a very good hoax indeed. And the existence of those references evidently disproves any notion that these are hoax articles. As Wikipedia editors, it is not our job to prove or disprove the conclusions of reliable sources, of which those certainly are examples, and to do so we would need to engage in original research, a violation of one of Wikipedia's core principles. If you can uncover some evidence (in the form of citations of reliable sources) that disproves anything reported in the article, by all means please add it; or flag any specific citations you think are "flimsy" with the appropriate tag ({{Better source}}), including your reasoning. In the meantime, stop adding {{hoax}} tags to well-sourced articles. If you continue to do so, your actions will be regarded as vandalism and incur appropriate consequences. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, you might note (by reviewing the articles' history [1][2][3]) that the Wikipedia articles in question were created between 11 and 8 years ago, and have survived review by many editors since their creation. If they are merely part of an elaborate hoax, it was clearly one that was very long in both planning and execution. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The BBC sources are from either external links or mirrored websites because they are not from the official BBC news website. The BBC publishes pieces on external links for reasons such as "entertainment" and doesn't claim responsibility for the validity of external links. The other sources are pure trash. If you take a look at the edit history for these pages one thing becomes apparent: the general idea for these hoaxes (more like publicity/media manipulation tools) were sketched out a few years ago and suddenly filled up in 2014. Film scripts/novels take a while to write and get published-- it's understandable that the pages would be a few years old (mainly 2006). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.184.102 (talk • contribs) 02:54 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Really, when did http://news.bbc.co.uk/ cease to be an "official BBC news website"? Likewise, when did http://www.telegraph.co.uk and http://met.police.uk cease to be official? And would you please sign your edits by typing four tildes (~~~~)? I'm growing tired of doing it for you. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And, perhaps as evidence in support of my suspicion that you are not actually taking the time to read what you are seeing, no: two of the three articles in question were created in 2003, only one in 2006; and either one being more than "a few years old". Dwpaul ^Talk 03:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It ceased to be reliable when it became news.bbc.co.uk instead of THE OFFICIAL BBC WEBSITE www.bbc.com. I think you need a refresher course on domain names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.184.102 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And you are mistaken, as news.bbc.co.uk is a subdomain of bbc.co.uk and is the domain owned and used by the BBC for its news operations since 1996. Done discussing this with you, friend. Continue to add {{hoax}} tags inappropriately as you were doing, and I will continue to treat it as vandalism, and we'll see which one of us is blocked from editing first. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

www.bbc.co.uk seems to be owned by the BBC but news.bbc.co.uk doesn't seem to be related if not for links to the bbc website. The guidelines for publishing editorials on the BBC website states that the author should be known-- so why doesn't that "news.bbc.co.uk" article show the author? As I said earlier, the bbc warns of external links on their website: they say they do not produce, maintain, and can not change external links... but news.bbc.co.uk is not even accessible from bbc.com (as long as your computer isn't being redirected that is.).

Done. See above. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sandra Williams

As you can see from the account's block log it is a sockpuppet of long-term banned sockmaster User:OSUHEY, who has an interest in the Ohio legislature. As a banned editor their edits can be reverted on sight by anyone, and it is good practice to do this even if the edits are otherwise productive. In the case of OSUHEY there is the additional factor that this editor has a long history of serious copyright violations, so any of their contributions would have to be thoroughly checked for potential copyright violations before being allowed to remain anyway. Hut 8.5 22:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, understood. Any reason I shouldn't take their edits and (after checking that they are not copyvios) recreate them on at least a few articles of interest to me? Dwpaul ^Talk 22:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You can as long as you're prepared to assume responsibility for the content yourself. You will certainly need to check for copyvio and I suggest you rephrase any prose anyway to be safe (copyright violations can be extremely hard to spot if the person adding them knows what they are doing). Bear in mind though that restoring their changes is likely to lead to OSUHEY making more edits in defiance of the ban. Hut 8.5 22:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Boys Choir of Harlem

Boys Choir of Harlem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello i am now an new and active member of the new boys and girls choir and I edited the page with real events that really happened and you removed it and said it wasn't correct please I can I edit the page with these events because I don't think it is fare that the information for the choir is not up to date what do I have to do to make sure my edit is seen by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadiahisroyalty (talk • contribs) 04:06, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Please see the message I left on your Talk page for an explanation of how to provide a citation of a reliable source for the information you added. It is because your edit did not include such a citation that it was removed, not because it was not correct,. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You removed my link

" Hello, I'm Dwpaul. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Emergency light, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Dwpaul Talk 04:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)"

You just removed my link. I placed my link there because the content that was there previously was a broken link and I had the best resource comparative to that URL. If the link for the content where the resource is from does not work, and you will not accept mine, then please remove all the content that came from that original link on the Wiki page, because without a source that content could be considered plagiarized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emergencylights (talk • contribs) 04:22, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Read the warning messages on your Talk page and the policies linked within them. Your persistent introduction of promotional links, including modification of others' comments on a Talk page, have brought you within a hair's breadth of being blocked from editing. Please do not continue. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Mac and me

Curious about your undoing of the edit of Mac and Me. You hold it's one of the greatest movies of all time? Citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.49.236 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)

See the message on your Talk page. I did not just revert your change, I reverted to a previous edition in order to remove other vandalism performed by the IP who edited the article before you. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I'll redo my one individual change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.49.236 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Not necessary, your change will have been included in the changes made in the reversion. (Please sign your edits by typing four tildes ~~~~ after your comments on any Talk page.) Dwpaul ^Talk 16:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. 209.99.49.236 (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Kill Dil

Kill Dil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

what was wrong with my editing? the film pretty much sucked and you're writing it received good critical reception which is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilcritic (talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC

@Lilcritic: You replaced sourced content with a single sentence that was completely unsourced; then you did it again with a paragraph that contained no sources. You must cite reliable sources, especially if you intend to quote them. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, the opinions of critics belong in "Critical reception", not "Boxoffice reception" (which is where the boxoffice statistics go), and you cannot quote entire paragraphs from a reviewer here, as that is a copyright violation. Only brief fragments may be quoted here verbatim to support paraphrasing of the critic's reaction. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Lastly, I'm not writing that the movie "received good critical reception" or anything else (that would have been one or more editors that came before you and me); I'm only preventing you from introducing unsourced content to the article. I have no clue about the quality of the movie, and frankly I don't care; but I do care about the quality of the article here, and about upholding Wikipedia's policies concerning sourcing of content. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Nazi concentration camps revert

This page was neither in reference to a British-English person or thing, but nor was it in reference to an American-English person or thing, so my question is (no offence intended), why was the section of text reverted back to American-English from the British-English translation? Is it that there is a lot more American-English Wikipedia users or articles published by them, or the preference stance of Wikipedia, or whether the page was originally in American-English?(in that case, I duly respect that) Sincerely, An anonymous Wikipedia viewer - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.35.51 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)‎

Apparently you didn't read the notice I left for you on your Talk page. Please do. Among other things, it tells you not to change words from one national variety of English to another if you are unsure of the variety of English that is appropriate for a given page. Obviously, from your comments above, that applies here. American English was the variety originally used to write the article, and there was no reason for you to change a word to its British English variant. See WP:ENGVAR. And please sign your edits on any Talk page using four tildes (~~~~). Dwpaul ^Talk 06:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry Dwpaul. I am new to Wikipedia and did not know the way things are done at Wikipedia. I recognize these faults and errors and how important different variants of English mean to people like yourself. I will not do it again.

                                                     203.217.35.51 (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Sincerely, 
                                                                     An anonymous Wikipedia viewer.
                                                            (P.S. Is this the correct way of signing an edit?)

Sorry

I'm sorry I changed something on your page. I was trying to serve a point that you can change something on Wikipedia sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RUSHxCRUSH (talk • contribs) 04:33, 16 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Do not vandalize articles here just to make a point. You will be blocked from editing just as readily for that as for any other kind of vandalism. Dwpaul ^Talk 05:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I messed up on the external links section

Hello, Dwpaul! I hope you are well.

I tried to update the external links section with a link to the Authors on the Air page for The Authentic Woman, and I thought I had deleted the extra sub-links in that section (that are actually sources to verify a statement in the next to last paragraph on the [Shannon Fisher] page), but they are still there in the external links section. Perhaps the problem is that the sources have not yet been approved? Or did I do something wrong? (I'm assuming it is the latter - LOL)

I also removed the orphan note at the top of the page because the Shannon Fisher page is now linked from the [UniteWomen.org] page twice (I had permission to update it, and I added several things to their page). I hope it is okay that I removed the orphan note.

Thanks so much, and have a great day!

(CuriousGeorgiaLou (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC))

I removed the "offending" entries, which were typed explicitly in the References section and, since they were not matched to <ref> tags, automatically shifted (when the article was viewed) to the External links section, with this edit. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor--Interesting Technical Issue

Greetings. You warned someone with the IP address, 2601:A:3680:CAD:4924:24DC:B3F:444E about disruptive editing of a wrestling article at this "talk" page: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:2601:A:3680:CAD:4924:24DC:B3F:444E. The editor subsequently made an unsubstantiated POV edit @ Denis Tsargush, which I undid. Nearly a month later, a similar but not identical IP address, he made a similar edit, which I've undone. It seems to me that both addresses are candidates for blocking at this point, and your substantial credentials make you look like someone to get the ball rolling.

Whatever happens, I've never seen an address like it, and if you know what it is (and I'm betting on that), I'd appreciate you sending me a brief explanation, thank you. Also note: this individual was 'clever' enough to use a slight variant of the 'original' address to make the second bogus edit.

Ironically, I'm a fan of the wrestler he's talking up in the 'Tsargush' article, and I suspect he's correct--but unwilling to abide by the rules. The wrestler in question is a 'Jersey boy,' like me. Go figure.

Thanks for all the good work you do here. Regards Tapered (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tapered: The user identified by 2601:A:3680:CAD:4924:24DC:B3F:444E is just an unregistered user identified by an IPv6 address, not really different from any conventional IP user. IPv6 addresses are intended to eventually replace conventional IPv4 addresses, for which they are running out of unique addresses. IPv6 addresses for the same terminal can change/be reassigned just like IP (v4) addresses, and the user (generally) cannot "choose" a specific address in order to deliberately alter the address that appears here (though they could request that a new IP be assigned, or may be using multiple terminals, which could include cellular devices). The article in question seems to have been targeted for WP:BLP violations, so I keep a close eye on it. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dwpaul: There's been more disruptive editing @ Denis Tsargush by both of the IP addresses above, as well as 72.236.192.238, which also has a history of disruptive edits and bans. Looks to me like it's time for a liberal imposition of bans, but I leave it to your judgement. Regards Tapered (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I will request temporary page protection on Denis Tsargush, but the volume of inappropriate edits is actually rather low and appears to be limited to one editor using multiple IPs (some of which are IPv6). The IPv4 address you mentioned, 72.236.192.238 happens to be one that was also recently used to make what was clearly a disruptive BLP violation on Kyle Snyder (wrestler), the article I am watching closely. So I do not doubt that the edits are disruptive, but I'm not sure they rise to level of a block (yet). Also, the user seems to IP-hop so it will be tough to address this with a block. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tapered: Received this reply at WP:RFPP:

I blocked the IPv6 range responsible for most of the disruptive edits. If the disruption continues from other IPs, let me know. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that will give both of us some relief from this disruptive editor (or at least force them to use the IPv4 address, which is somewhat easier to track) for the three-month duration of the range block. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User 64.134.26.72 has made POV/disruptive edits to both Denis Tsargush and Kyle Snyder, the same pattern as those 2 blocked IPv6 editors--so it's probably the same individual. Another editor left a message about the Snyder article, and I left a Level 3 warning at his user page, but it seems to me it's time for a block. Thanks for your time & Regards. Tapered (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	A barnstar for you this evening! livelikemusic my talk page! 02:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops....

You deleted my post here inadvertantly: [4]. Can you fix that and return my post in the appropriate place? --Jayron32 03:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was inadvertent. Sorry, 'been fixed. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Dwpaul, I just wanted to say thanks for helping explain the WP:LISTPEOPLE on Morningtv13's talk page. I know what I'm saying, but am a horrible explainer which may lead to some people being confused. Although, I think some of us have tried to explain it to him once before about the Notable people situation. So I just wanted to say thanks for helping! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! It's not just you; there was a long discussion and edit war (with notices earlier on their Talk page) about Al Roker in which a similar and similarly persistent lack of understanding was evident. I think some (but not all) may be related to the editor's primary language not being English (not that I know what it is). Dwpaul ^Talk 23:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I took part in that as well, but backed out because I saw you commented and decided to leave it to the more experienced user. I'm not sure what s/he's language is, but hopefully they will understand it in the end. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

news

Please add the link to Robert Rosenkranz page Regarding his acrimonious divorce Http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1997/0908/60005094a.html Http://www.checkfundmanager.net/dilegence/? P=2313 Google: 'til divorce do us part forbes 1996 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1506:A399:E109:F77D:CE08:74C5 (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any particular interest in editing the Robert Rosenkranz page. Perhaps you should make your suggestion on that article's Talk page. Dwpaul ^Talk 07:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Links for the robert rosenkranz page don't work please Google 'till divorce do us part forbes 1996 It's the first reference : Flint shelters paragraph 12 Google rosenkranz divorce check fund manager It's first link, last paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1506:A399:E109:F77D:CE08:74C5 (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't hear me: I don't care. Bring it up on the Talk page of the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 07:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

His or usually removes the edits would a precise if you could give it a try See the resent changes due to the sex scandal Google Rosenkranz daily mail, new York post page six, the Telegraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1506:A399:E109:F77D:CE08:74C5 (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. I can clearly see from the Talk page history that you have not posted there. Whatever scam you're running, I'm not interested. Please stop posting on my Talk page. Dwpaul ^Talk 07:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Lil Durk

If you search Lil Durk's name on Google, it appears there is an unnecessary link there which excludes you from gaining any knowledge from the quick search. Nobody wants to see a link of a picture of Lil Durk whilse there is already a picture above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justtocorrect (talk • contribs) 03:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if there's an issue with the way Google presents information on Lil Durk, you'll need to take it up with Google. Wikipedia doesn't have any control over this presentation. (For what it's worth, it works just fine for me.) Dwpaul ^Talk 04:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson revert

I don't understand this revert. It re-added unsourced content with the editsum "Unsourced content". ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, see my latest revert of the revert. I mistook Winkelvi's removal of content for an introduction. Dwpaul ^Talk

Thanks. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Asia Carrera-Lemmon

Hi, I may be new to wikipedia, but this ain't my first rodeo. My addition to the Asia Carrera-Lemmon page was deleted because "facebook is not a reliable source" when infact that was the OFFICIAL Asia Carrera-Lemmon facebook page and the post was made my her personal assistant. I think you should un delete it. thanks. Also, you seemed quite snarky in your message and I'd be really suprised if I ever got a response to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babydoll888 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 3 December 2014‎ (UTC)

@Babydoll888: It doesn't matter whether it was posted on her Facebook page by her mother. A Facebook page is not a reliable source for biographical information here on Wikipedia. Please read the message left on your Talk page, including the articles linked to it (the highlighted words) and to this message. Also, please always sign your comments on any Talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~) after them. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dwpaul: I appreciate your help and I did not mean to offend you. I'm just annoyed because my contribution was deleted so quickly. I do not understand why facebook is not a reliable source if the information is coming directly from the person who it is about. I have read all the links you gave me and I am still confused. Perhaps you can explain it to me without using links. Thank you (Babydoll888 (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC))

@Babydoll888: The main reason is because we cannot be certain at all that someone who creates a Facebook page is who they purport to be, and that the things they may claim on that page (even if they are) are true. Anyone can create a Facebook page using any name, and type anything on it, and many pages exist for a variety of celebrities that are not directly connected with the celebrity (despite some of them claiming to be). Also, Facebook pages are not infrequently hijacked by people other than the people who set them up, and if and when they are a variety of things, true and untrue, can be posted there. I am not saying that any of these are the case here, but these considerations have been reflected in a policy that Facebook pages and other self-published pages are not to be considered reliable sources (unless they have received certain special investigation by and status by Facebook, which Asia's page has not). Another statement to that effect is here.

Reliable, independent sources are mostly print and other news media who are subject to journalistic standards and fact-checking requirements. If you were able to provide a link to a newspaper article that said that Asia had been diagnosed with a disease, we would likely consider it a usable citation, because that news organization has assumed responsibility for verifying that the information is true and correct, and receives liability if it is not. Also, this kind of citation, if online, is persistent (remains online in some form, at the original site and/or another site such as archive.org) so it will be verifiable by a reader years from now, while a Facebook post will not.

Also keep in mind that people's medical diagnoses are generally considered very sensitive information (though clearly Asia, if it is really Asia, isn't sensitive about it). If someone wrote on their Facebook page that they owned a blue car, and that was somehow notable (though I can't imagine why it would be), we would probably be able to relax our standards somewhat, since that is not sensitive or controversial information. But if someone writes that someone has (for example) become divorced, has a disease, or has been arrested, the source for that information should always be highly reliable.

Also note that biographical pages of living persons have the most stringent standards for sourcing of any type of article, in part because Wikipedia has potential liability (for defamation) if we do not enforce those standards. That policy requires immediate removal of unsourced or improperly sourced information that is even slightly controversial or sensitive. Hence my prompt removal of your edit.

If you read information on Wikipedia policies and guidelines at no other links than the ones I have included and made bold above, please read those. They make up the core policies of the entire encyclopedia, and your understanding of them early on will make you a much more successful and productive Wikipedia editor. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dwpaul: Hi Dwpaul, I would like to thank you for all of your helpful information. I would also like to apologize for my rudeness in my previous messages. I am very young, and would like to be able to make a contribution to the amazing information portal that is wikipedia, but it is important that I know the rules first. Before I did not even know that you could write a mention by typing [[mention|(person's name)]] or how to sign my name by writing (~~~~). There is still so much for me to learn! Thank you so much for taking all the time to write out the whole explanation for me. I really appreciate that, and understand what makes a source reliable and how that is so important. This is great knowledge that I'm sure will come in handy off of wikipedia. I hope you have a great day. Many thanks, (Babydoll888 (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC))

You're welcome, and thanks for the apology (though it really wasn't expected). We encounter folks who make comments far more rude than yours were, I assure you, and who are less interested in how to do things the right way. Enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Dwpaul ^Talk 04:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not wise...

I'm not sure that this edit is wise. It can be interpreted as poking, and it makes a few assumptions probably not shared by everybody. Just my impression, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; I'll take your good advice, especially since my advice to the other editor pertained to respect for authority. ;-) Dwpaul ^Talk 17:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I'm all against respect for authority ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Great work

Thanks for your great responses on the Sydney hostage crisis talk page. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	thanks for your efforts on that Sydney article Gnangarra 13:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

hi

did you see the source i added i misplaced it but it says salafi-wahabism. Vietcong nuturlizer (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and as I stated in my edit summary when I removed it, "Based on [my] reading of Wahhabism, the original term [Salafi] appears correct and is the term the source used." We use the terms our sources use in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, and in this case the article you linked to gives compelling evidence to the support the source's term. I refer to the original source for the information. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

To wit: Many, such as writer Quinton Wiktorowicz, urge use of the term Salafi, maintaining that "one would be hard pressed to find individuals who refer to themselves as Wahhabis or organizations that use 'Wahhabi' in their title, or refer to their ideology in this manner (unless they are speaking to a Western audience that is unfamiliar with Islamic terminology, and even then usage is limited and often appears as 'Salafi/Wahhabi')." Dwpaul ^Talk 23:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

exists

hmm, I have seen it before it was taken down, I do not think it is something that needs resurrecting, imho, I am sure there is a policy regarding photos of murdered children... However in this fraught environment, its your call, I do not think I am going to get into online discussion further regarding this issue. Other than that, good on your editing! satusuro 02:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is graphic, and perhaps another editor will present a Wikipedia policy that requires it be removed. I know of none myself, and think it is helpful to the process of accurately describing his recent statements there and his general state of mind. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Not. so better I leave it at that. It is not wikipedias role to perpetuate crap. the terrorism in australia article is currently trying to do that, the people who know are repeatedly saying it is a lone looney and every editor is trying to turn it into something it wasnt. I am taking a break from this stuff, it simply shows how something is black, people are trying to say it is blue. enough. satusuro 02:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: comments

I must say that given your editing history I'm surprised that you seem to not understand why this would be out of scope here.

Be surprised all you want, but the next time you engage in an ad hominem like that I'll take you to task for incivility. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I don't understand the scope. And I have no idea what my editing history has to do with this. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't an ad hominem attack, and no reasonable person would think it was. It was a sincere statement of surprise of exactly what I said surprised me, and I am entitled to be surprised about anything I like, and to mention it, thank you very much. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And yet, you still can't explain what you meant by it; meanwhile, you appealed to the person and changed the subject, which falls along the lines of an ad hominem. I said, "this subject is within the scope of the article". You replied with, "look at your editing history, I can't believe you would say that". You went ad hominem, and clearly you aren't honest enough to admit it. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I can easily explain what I meant by it, but it is clear that it would be a waste of my time. I can tell you, as I already did, that it was not an ad hominem attack.Dwpaul ^Talk 04:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be a waste of your time, because at this point, I have serious questions about your honesty. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that is the overture to an ad hominem attack. Do what you like, bring it up at WP:AN/I if you like, but please depart from my Talk page. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? You can be surprised about my position based on my edit history, but I can't question your honesty? Hypocrite. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Incredibles content deletion

Hi, I know that there were some items available at the Disney shop in London in 2004. These articles are no longer available from the shop but I know they exist because I bought them there and still have them. I cannot find any reference to them anywhere on the internet. I do not know how to verify their existence because they are no longer available. Is there a way to verify them. Thankyou. Alanberris (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please see WP:V (Verifiability). The fact that you are sure they exist does not make you a reliable source for the information in a Wikipedia article. If there is no reliable source, then the information can not be published here. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Emma Stone

Hi Dwpaul,

Can you please leave that -- the information is generally available on the internet. (Jean Fowler is actually my mom -- and my brother and I are doing it in part for celebration of her retirement. Thanks! Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefstrong (talk • contribs) 05:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tefstrong: If the information is "generally available on the internet", you should have no trouble providing a citation of a reliable source for the information. Unless and until you do, and regardless of your relationship with the person you named, it is unsourced and will be removed as a potential violation of Wikipedia's policies on biography of living persons. See WP:BURDEN. Also please see conflict of interest. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi DwPaul,

I'm not exactly sure how to technically go about adding the references you mentioned. If you asked Jennie, Emma, Garrett, Alexxa and the many other entertainers the contribution my mom has left on their life, it would be enormous. She literally connected them from a small town to major gateways to their careers. This is on the Internet, all over. Therefore, it's common to find on the Internet. Google Jean Fowler and Jenny Garth or Garrett Hedlund or Emma Stone or Allexxa Havins and those always credit to her assistance. I'm not sure how to cite (I've never donw this before), and want to see that it's on their for her grand children. Would you be willing to help me contribute these since you know a lot more about than I do?

Thank you!

Tom Strong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefstrong (talk • contribs) 04:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tefstrong: Tom, please start by reading the articles at the several highlighted links in my reply to you above. If you do, you will better understand that all content added to articles here must be verifiable. Unfortunately, the information you are attempting to add is not (that is, there is no independent, reliable source to cite for it -- and I have looked). Therefore, the information cannot be added. Sorry. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and pointers on how to cite the pages. It's complicated the because, for example, Jenny Garth indicates her training experience but it's in an aubiography on Google Books. Garrett Hedlunds has many stories linked to him working to pay for acting lessons from my mom. But there is so much wiki jargon and citation etiquette. How do you actually take the webpage and put it I to the footnote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefstrong (talk • contribs) 04:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tefstrong: See WP:CITE (which is the article at one of the links I mentioned above). Dwpaul ^Talk 04:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice Surjendraniladittyanath Thakur (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Item

Jane Seymour talked openly with fans about her relationship with David Green at her art show in Kimg of Prussia, Penn., in December 2014. He is seen in the background of a photo of her with Aaron Paul, taken last night at the Elton John Oscar watching party (Zimbio). He is also seen with her in a photo on her official Instagram (Monte Carlo, May 2014). Other photos of them together can be seen on IG suewongfashion. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHateOysters (talk • contribs) 10:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Roxanne Shanté

Dear Dwpaul, I just recently took a look at my Wikipedia page and there is so much about me that's missing. The fact that I'm a great host the things I do in the community and the Awards that I have been given. Yes I have made mistakes but when people look me up I dont want them to see just that. I tried to correct even the way I started my career. My song was just a freestyle I did on my way to the laundry it had nothing to do with radio stations. And UTFO didn't come up with a roxanne until they saw the success I was having. I have done projects with many Artists I have been sampled more than any other voice in hiphop on projects like Janet Jackson, Blackeye peas , j Cole, Nas I have been on other many soundtracks and too many complications to count. I just want the world to know there's more than just a not obtained or completed PHD. Sincerely Imroxanneshante (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)RoxanneShante

@Imroxanneshante: Please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:COI and Writing about yourself and your work. While you may want the Wikipedia page about you (assuming you are Roxanne Shanté) to say more, those articles explain why you generally should not edit it. Also, just to be clear, the page about Roxanne Shanté is not "yours" per se. This is not a social media site, but an encyclopedia. The page belongs to the Wikipedia community, as does the entire encyclopedia. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay I was not aware of this as so I will read up more on it and have it submitted properly if I submit it at all. I thank you for taking the time out to explain the process. Imroxanneshante (talk)RoxanneShanteImroxanneshante (talk) oh and yes it's me — Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

New to editing

i apoligize about the origional research , i was not aware of the policy , if you see anymore , just delete it , but know that it was done before i read the policy , i shall try to provide sources for my edits from here on out , but i would appreciate that you stop spamming me with messages , no hard feelings , just a newbie editor , may Yeshua bless you. Rebelalliance352 (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Rebelalliance352

The VFW Category

Category:Veterans of Foreign Wars was created for articles related to the VFW organization in the United States, not for any biography articles on a soldier who served in a different country. The main article is Veterans of Foreign Wars, it's parent categories are organizational, it's spelling is capitalized, and the content is clearly VFW. The main editor of the VFW article got a little carried away with applying the category, albeit in good faith. According to the sourced article, Truman wa a member but it doesn't seem to be defining enough to pass WP:NON-DEFINING or WP:COPDEF. If you want to add a new veteran's category, I have no objection. I want to make sure we avoid an (unintentional) edit war based on a misunderstanding of the category. If you still disagree, please tag me so we can discuss further. Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect: Then the category page Category:Veterans of Foreign Wars needs text to explain this; as you can see for yourself, there are a number of other notable veterans of foreign wars (e.g., Audie Murphy) having nothing to do specifically with the VFW who have been included in that category, based on the same assumption as mine. It is a reasonable assumption that a category that begins with "Veterans..." is a container for people who are veterans, not a category pertaining to an organization or only people related to an organization. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point! I added a hatnote to Category:Veterans of Foreign Wars to make this clearer. Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Phoebe Prince revert

Ah, but is she encyclopaedic, or just news worthy? I say she's just news worthy. No one will care about her.... already, actually. And I lived in South Hadley. - Denimadept (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This has already been extensively debated on the Talk page for Suicide of Phoebe Prince, but if you would like to do it some more, that is the place to do it, not here. As it stands, she is notable and the link from South Hadley remains. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

But It's Better If You Do

But It's Better If You Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I did what was suppose to be done on that page–◌ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitten45 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kitten45: Obviously I disagree. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Kelly Kelly

I understand the temptation to revert an editor who repeatedly adds unsourced material to an article, but you're not entitled to violate WP:3RR in doing so, which you did. I blocked the other editor, but, frankly, the main reason I didn't block you as well was because of the crude personal attack the user made on his Talk page. Nonethelesss, consider this a warning that if I see you do something like this again, you risk being blocked, and I'd hate to do that as I can see you're an experienced long-term editor with a clean block log. But for that same reason, you should know better.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Dwpaul ^Talk 05:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Harley Gaber

List of minimalist composers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Harley Gaber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks for explaining the standard I must meet in order to add Harley Gaber to the list of minimalist composers. For your reference, I'm now preparing an entry on Harley Gaber to submit to Wikipedia editors for publishing. This work in progress resides in my sandbox. Because I expect to complete the draft by end of this week, I'd like to resubmit revisions to the minimalist composer page after I my entry for Harley Gaber is accepted for publication. Does that sound acceptable? Morees68 (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Morees68: By all means. WP:WTAF is the policy that calls for it to be done in just this way. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Jordan Moran biography deletion concern

Jordan Maron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi! I am the who made an edit on the person named Jordan Moran. I suppose you have deleted for the reason of Reliable source and I am sorry in a hurry I forgot to include the source. Please, do not delete the content, a lot of effort has gone into it!If you bring the content back i will add the reiable sources! Thank you Komchi (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Komchi: I removed your edits a) because they were all completely unsourced but also b) because they were mostly unintelligible. I do not have any desire to insult you, but I have the strong sense that English is not your primary language. Both for the benefit of the project and the quality of your experience as an Wikipedia editor, I sincerely urge you to consider editing in the version of Wikipedia written in the language with which you are most comfortable. From these and others of your edits, I would suggest that the English edition is not the right one. However, if you would like to recover your edits and improve upon them, you will find them in the history of the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dwpaul:Sorry for the inconvenience, I would certainly try to improve my content and I had one question that can I use Youtube videos as my source?Thank You!

Since Youtube videos are generally self-published (meaning that anyone can post a video that contains either true or false information, or a mixture of the two), no, Youtube videos are usually not considered a reliable source for information added to a biographical article. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dwpaul:Even if he made it himself?

@Komchi: Even if (you believe) he made it himself. Perhaps especially so, since people often make false claims about themselves for their own benefit. Please read Biographies of living persons and Reliable sources. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komchi (talk • contribs) 01:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC) So, hello again I had my question rechecked in Wikipedia:Teahouse and they said Youtube videoes can be used as references.Secondly,the question of incomprehension, I think volunteers would definitely come to help. See for yourself if we do not add content such articles will remain stub. Komchi (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Komchi: Please reread the answer you received at the Teahouse carefully. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So,I actually wrote the whole life of Jordan Moran (a.k.a.CaptainSparklez on Youtube) but it was based on 'Draw my life' video, does that count? Because Dwpaul cancelled for that not being reliable!Thanks for the reply though! Komchi (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
   @Komchi: Hi Komchi. I'm afraid that isn't going to be a reliable source because it is self-published. You'll need to provide sources that have an identifiable kind of editorial review like a news organization or a book (that is not self-published). I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

ok, my bad but then can you explain how can we expand it because there is literally no reliable source.Komchi (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Komchi: That is exactly the point. If there is no reliable source, the information simply cannot and should not be added to a Wikipedia article. If it is added, it will be removed. Not every article needs to be or should be expanded, and some that cannot be expanded will eventually be removed because they do not provide useful, reliable information to the reader. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dwpaul: Ok gotcha and sorry for all the inconvenience. Thank you!

Thanks, Komchi. I cannot accept the "Admin's Barnstar" because I am not an administrator, but I appreciate the thought. You're welcome! Dwpaul ^Talk 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

DIONNA MARIE DAL MONTE

Hi Dwpaul! I answered and told my reasons about Dionna Marie Dal Monte in the page about the explanations why it shouldn/t be deleted. Thanks anyway for your courtesy! --Oramorph (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Henry Kable

On Henry Kables wiki page, it states there was only ten children when it shows 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicmeman (talk • contribs) 19:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Your changes were unsourced. See WP:BURDEN. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hie its true news

Hie Dwpaul its.. a correct news that his wife commited sucide yesterday in mumbai. read news follow the link http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Wife-of-Bhojpuri-singer-Pawan-Singh-ends-life-at-Andheri/articleshow/46494037.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajateraho (talk • contribs) 21:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I have added it to the article – with the citation of a reliable source, which you did not include in your edits. Information concerning the alleged death of any person must be supported by reliable sources cited in the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)