User talk:Amccann421/Archive/July 2016 – September 2016

Clete Blakeman

Hey I saw you changed Clete Blakmen's page back but why I speaken the truth u see his jacked up calls don't you. I fudgin swear he plays favorites at times.

71.85.204.28 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Jarrett

Maybe you believe that, but don't state your opinion as fact. You've been warned more than enough times. Vandalize again, and you'll be blocked from editing. Amccann421 (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Mistakes

Hey Amccann421 thanks for the heads about that I will make my contributions better you get back to me on my talk page bye :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DANGEROUS REALITY (talk • contribs) 18:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit war at Millenials

An edit war is in progress on the article Millenials and some administrative intervention may be necessary. WQUlrich (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@WQUlrich: I'm not an admin, but hey, I'll take that as a compliment. Amccann421 (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Electric Peace

i'm still working on this page. i need to find all the citations. you have deleted my page before it was even posted. i did not publish it yet. now i am scared to work on it, if it is just going to be deleted Sonofdam (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sonofdam: It has not been deleted – it has been marked as an article to be deleted. It doesn't prove why the band is notable. Please see our guidelines on general notability and notability for bands. If you still think the article should remain, then leave your reasons on the article's talk page, and the administrator reviewing the page will take your comments into consideration before deciding to delete. If you're still working, it will likely be allowed to stay, for a time – unless it continues to fail to prove some significance. Amccann421 (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

this is just a quick google proof of life. do you think i should try, or was it not significant enough.

it could take me a month to get all my ducks in a row. thanks.

https://www.google.com/search?q=electric+peace+band&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCnNW1ntnNAhUp0oMKHbepAhUQsAQIQg&biw=1232&bih=670

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ELECTRIC-PEACE-INSECTICIDE-33RPM-12-LP-VG-BARRED-ROCK-1988-/122020022373?hash=item1c68f5c865:g:asEAAOSwjXRXZfSp

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ELECTRIC-PEACE-Medieval-Mosquito-LP-inner-shrink-Rock-Pop-/301172556114?hash=item461f488152:g:tVwAAMXQeW5TZFC4

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ELECTRIC-PEACE-medievel-mosquito-LP-SEALED-hollyrock-bad-religion-punk-psych-/302001858337?hash=item4650b6a721:g:vC0AAMXQJRhRcE6i

Sonofdam (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sonofdam: That doesn't seem notable enough. The band doesn't seem to have received any independent coverage or done anything else that would deem them notable enough. The links you've provided certainly prove that the band exist(ed), but existence does not indicate notability.

A word of advice: don't be discouraged or scared if the article (or any other contribution of yours) is deleted. Be bold, and don't be upset if your actions are reverted. Trial and error is key, especially as a new Wikipedian. Amccann421 (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

was my article on electric peace deleted already. i had to go to sleep. i read the "not notable garage band who cares" article. pretty strict. what is the Sonofdam (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC) thing about.

oops

Sonofdam (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sonofdam: Yes, it was deleted. By the way, the "garage band" article is actually an essay – it's not official policy, but many editors adhere to its pointers. Amccann421 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Tips

Hi I know your really busy but could u give me some tips on how to get my edits approved Thanks for your help:) from DANGEROUS REALITY — Preceding unsigned comment added by DANGEROUS REALITY (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@DANGEROUS REALITY: First of all, don't add nonsense to an article (like you did with this edit to Liver). This edit to Human digestive system was an improvement, but it duplicated information that was already in the article and did not need repeated.

I would recommend you read the welcome pages, as well as Wikipedia's core content policies. Feel free to return if you have any more questions. Amccann421 (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Riker Lynch

You left me a message that you deleted my edit to Riker Lynch's Wikipedia profile page. I added his role in a 2017 movie and added the reference of an IMDb page. Your message said that the IMDb link was not a valid reference. He has retweeted the IMDb link so would that be a valid reference? If not, please let know what you think can be done. I am unsure how to cite films in the filmography section. Get back to me when you can, thanks. Tomikofoster (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The only semi-reliable source I can find is Just Jared, but does that even count? Better if it's from Variety or Entertainment Weekly or some magazine like that. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 01:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh okay thanks for letting me know about that. I think I will just wait until a more reliable source comes up. Tomikofoster (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson

Official Government Records and sources currently cited in Wikipedia article aren't legitimate? Hmmm... or is it because the User is new to the community and her edits are being judged more on her lack of previous edits than on their quality?

I notice you have been the one to take down my third attempt to edit the Marilyn Manson article. I think you should read the post I left on the previous editor's page. Notice below that I note how I attempted to use a source other than Manson Wiki but I was told that the official YouTube channel for Larry King Now was not a valid source. I used Manson Wiki because, if you check the sources on the page, it is cited over and over again. I was also told the United States Patent and Trademark Office was invalid. No one is responding to the talk pages that I keep being directed to. If you are not able to help me resolve this, then I am going to have to go through the dispute center.

Interesting thing. I made these Marilyn Manson edits as part of a Graduate Seminar assignment all about crowd sourcing. I'm supposed to explore how it works and report my findings. So far, I have to say, I'm really not impressed. Though I haven't run into the problems of misinformation everyone is worried about, I am getting my legitimate information rejected without a clear basis, with the implications that better standing in the community might make my edits more acceptable. I was told to sign up for an account the first time, and give more and better sources. I did both of these things, yet was rejected again, told to go to the (Marilyn Manson article?) talk page. Well, okay, I thought. Sounds reasonable. So I posted there, but no replies from the user who keeps rejecting me and telling me to visit the talk page.

In addition, as I look at the article I'm trying to edit, I see very questionable sources that have been accepted as legitimate. I also see the same (or similar) sources that I am trying to use to cite my information. Yet my edit keeps getting rejected. That begs the question. What is really the issue here? I am fairly certain my new edit will get rejected. But what will be the basis this time? My information is now more thoroughly documented than most information listed in the article, and doesn't have a whiff of "original research" in it. So what's really happening here? Is there some kind of implicit hierarchy that undergirds wikipedia? Am I being excluded from the wikipedia community because I've chosen too important an article to edit without enough edits under my belt? If so, isn't this contrary to the anti-elitist, post-modern notions of knowledge that Wikipedia was founded on?

Anyway, I have submitted the following edited version without receiving further guidance. Just to be clear, this means that any improvement in the below entry is due to my own guesswork, not from any communication I have received from Govindaharihari, who keeps rejecting my edit without much feedback.

Brian Warner has mentioned on at least two occasions that the name “Marilyn Manson” is actually a trademark, not a stage name. In a 2015 interview at the Cannes Lions Festival, the musician said “I trademarked the name Marilyn Manson in the same way as Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse. It’s not a stage name. It’s not my legal name. Marilyn Manson is owned by Brian Warner.” [37] Manson also mentioned this in a 2013 interview with Larry King.[38] Trademark registration records held by the United States Patent and Trademark Office show that Brian Hugh Warner registered the first of four trademarks on “Marilyn Manson” on December 20, 1994, protecting "entertainment services; namely, live musical performances of a solo musician and/or musical group; and fan club services." Three subsequent trademarks, issued between 1995 and 1999, give Warner exclusive branding rights to “Marilyn Manson." In both the Larry King and Cannes Lions interviews, Manson reports using these trademark registrations in order to secure a cease and desist order to silence media who were wrongly blaming him for the Columbine High School shooting after one journalist erroneously reported that one of the shooters was wearing a Marilyn Manson T-Shirt. [39]

Govindaharihari previously rejected my edit on the basis of "original research," so I have attempted to make sure there is nothing remotely interpretative about the above information. He/She also rejected the previous edit on the basis of the legitimacy of the sources. However, the Larry King interview I referenced is actually used elsewhere in the extant Marilyn Manson article, except whoever posted that reference used the Manson Wiki. I used Larry King's official YouTube channel. which qualifies as a primary source. I thought a primary source would be preferable to a tertiary source like Manson Wiki. I am certain it would be elsewhere, but clearly I am not versed in all the rules and practices of wikipedia. At any rate, I made sure that both interviews I cited came from Manson Wiki since this appears to be a source that has been accepted as valid in this particular context. As far as the records from the United States Patent and Trademark office, I am unsure how to make those more acceptable. The Untied States Patent and Trademark Office is a federal agency required to keep official documents. If Govindaharihari could share with me why there are concerns about the legitimacy of this source, perhaps I can do something more.

If you reject my edits again, please give me detailed feedback on how you would like them fixed or explain to me why it is not relevant to Marilyn Manson's wikipedia page that he has trademarked his name. If you do not have the time or ability to address these concerns, please direct me to someone who can. It is my hope that this is merely a misunderstanding.

JessamynSwan (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally my edits were rejected again. And incidentally, I did not receive much feedback. So let's get down to business and do what Wikipedia is supposedly famous for: Collaboration.Help me fix this so that it is acceptable to you. And while we're at it, let's go ahead and delete every piece of information in the Marilyn Manson Article that uses Manson Wiki as its source and make sure that every piece of information is accurately sourced. Let's do it. I'm in this for the long haul. JessamynSwan (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

To User:JessamynSwan :Please don't feel that people are being mean to you because you are new here. I've edited for 10 years and sometimes my efforts get reverted. Youtube is sometimes acceptable when it presents the statements of someone. The link should not be a copyright infringement; the person posting a video on Youtube should own it or have the right to post it. If you don't agree with other editors removing your contributions on the ground they don't qualify as reliable sources, you could seek input from other editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There is also a helpful page WP:identifying reliable sources. By the way, please sign your posts (you missed on the article talk page) and please add you new threads at the bottom of someone's talk page (you put it at the top of the other editor's page). That could lead to them not seeing it. Do not put a space at the beginning of a line, or the text will appear in a box. Edison (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, JessamynSwan. I apologize for the delay, I stepped away and then had to write this nice, lengthy response. If you're unsatisfied with any of my explanations, please ask further questions – I'm here to help you.

First, of all – yes, you are new here (welcome, by the way!). However, no, that's not why your edits have been reverted (as Edison pointed out). One of our core policies is assuming good faith. This means that we assume you're making your edits without intent to harm. You, in turn, assume that we are not intending to harm. Therefore, please don't accuse us of undoing your edits because you're new or because your others were undone (or for any other reason). That's not assuming good faith. We are meant to judge content, not contributor.

In regards to your suggestion of "go ahead and delete every piece of information in the Marilyn Manson Article that uses Manson Wiki", that's suggesting doing what we call "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point". I am willing to work alongside you to improve the sections of Marilyn Manson that cite it (instead of removing it altogether), but that's for later discussion and not relevant now.

Primary sources can be misused (not in this instance, but in general), so that's why we generally prefer secondary sources here on Wikipedia. Tertiary sources are acceptable to a lesser extent, but we try to stay away from user-generated sites, such as IMDb, Wikis (i.e. Manson Wiki), and other Wikipedia articles.

I don't know why Govindaharihari rejected your edit as original research, and I don't know why he/she is not responding. I wish I knew. However, he/she is a little bit out of line here. Repeatedly undoing edits without explanation is in bad taste, especially when the edits in question come from someone unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines.

Now then, the article content – Your edits are not all that bad, and certainly better than most new editors'. As mentioned above, Manson Wiki is not a reliable source (the US government is). I think I've found a more reliable source (The Guardian) that supports the idea that "Marilyn Manson" is a character he's created.

You mentioned interviews that you pulled from the Manson Wiki – could you provide those interviews? That could be our key to some great sources.

Not sure if I covered everything (again, let me know of any more questions), but this is a start. Again, stay calm – I'll help you every step of the way. Amccann421 (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I certainly hope they're not all that bad. I've written 2 graduate level papers on Marilyn Manson, and my sources have never been a problem before. But the real issue here is that I was given to understand that my edits would appear if they were in good faith and that I would get to watch them evolve as people came in and added things, removed things, refined things. I am disappointed that that has not happened. That is why my original versions were deliberately rough. I thought this would be far more collaborative. I appreciate your understanding of my frustration.

My suggestion to go through and edit all items containing reference to mansonwiki was rhetorical, intended to prove a point. Of course I did offer to go through and edit them all, and though I think that tracking down primary records for tour dates might require doing real leg work in brick and mortar archives, not all of which would be successful, I am willing to contribute to that kind of work (I am talking about tracking down programs published by Manson on his tours, which would make them a primary source). However, I would not undertake such a task in my current state of confusion over what is and what is not acceptable.

You are looking at the second version of the edit. The third version contains three references. It is reproduced in my original message. You rejected the third edit, not the second edit.

There is no source for the interview at Cannes Lions except YouTube. My understanding of copyright law is that citing a video that appears on Youtube is not a violation of copyright law. I did not know providing links to copyrighted material was against wikipedia's policy but as far as I understand, such usage of copyright material is protected under fair use. I will conform to Wikipedia's policies, however. Larry King Now is the other interview. Larry King Now is a television series produced by Hulu. Hulu, being a similar to YouTube as a streaming, subscription based service, I assume, is also off limits on Wikipedia?

JessamynSwan (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@JessamynSwan: Usually, your good-faith edits would appear with no issue. However, Marilyn Manson is an article with pending changes protection, which allows reviewers like myself to review edits before they go live to the public. This is done for a variety of reasons, but usually is instituted to catch vandalism and disruptive edits before they can be seen.

Videos are indeed permitted – assuming that they aren't illegal (i.e. pirated or uploaded without consent) and are informative and relevant. They can be used as a reference if done with care (see here). So then yes, I think Larry King Now would pass, as Hulu is both creator and uploader.

At the very least, we can include the information and a tag. As long as the information is not libelous, a source is not absolutely crucial.

If you would like to re-add your edit, I can accept it and edit it. When I'm done, I can update you on what I did and why, and we can collaborate on any changes that are needed. Amccann421 (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I see. All right, I went ahead and submitted the edit again, with a few changes. I found a source i am unfamiliar with that gives quotes from the Cannes Lions interview (blabbermouth.net). I am unsure if this is a valid source or not, however. It is cited elsewhere on the page and seems to be a news source.

I also cited the information about Manson using the trademarks for a cease and desist order after media began wrongly blaming him for Columbine. Thank you for your understanding and your help. I really appreciate it and I look forward to seeing your edits on the info!

JessamynSwan (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@JessamynSwan: Thanks for letting me know. I'm getting to work right now. I'll let you know when I've finished. Amccann421 (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@JessamynSwan: I've finished – you can view the section here. I moved our work to a new section related to his name.

What I did:

1. I reworked the references into cite web format (and cite episode for Larry King Now). This is part of Citation Style 1, the most popular reference style on Wikipedia. There wasn't anything wrong with the way you cited, but Citation Style 1 creates both ease of access and uniformity. This was what took the most work.

2. I went and found the individual PDFs on the Patent & Trademark Office's database, and added them in as four individual references. It took a little bit of time to figure out how to navigate the site, but I managed.

3. I did some rewording in order to improve the flow and to adhere to the Manual of Style perfectly – by far the easiest bit.

I might have made a couple other minor tweaks, but nothing too extraordinary. If you don't understand anything, let me know.

I think we've made a pretty nice addition to this article – it's certainly an improvement. I'm especially glad that what could have escalated into a dispute or an edit war instead became a civil discussion and collaboration. Hey, that's what Wikipedia is famous for, isn't it? Amccann421 (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It certainly is! Thank you so much for going through so much effort to help me out with this.I agree entirely with all your improvements. It reads much smoother now and I can see, after looking at the changes you made, why there was a problem with the way I was citing things and the sources I was using. I clearly have a lot to learn about when it comes to not only Wikipedia but digital sources more generally. The rules are a bit different (perhaps outdated) in grad school. If its not too difficult to explain, could you tell me how you found the pdfs of the Trademark records? I'll definitely go through the links you've given me so that I can improve.

JessamynSwan (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@JessamynSwan: I originally tried to go through the link you had cited, but it said "my session had expired". I spent a fair bit of time searching both the website and Google, but with no success. Then, I stumbled upon what they call the "Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR)". The link is here.

From there, I just copy-pasted the case numbers (that you had provided in the original citation) and searched. When the results came up, I went to the "Documents" section, and there you can find the official Registration Certificate. That's what I cited.

You certainly have a lot to learn, but that's perfectly okay. It takes time to learn guidelines, practices, code... all that fun stuff. You are on a far better path than most new editors. Amccann421 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Assault rifle

There is no source for a translation correction apart from a dictionary. And it should be pretty obvious even to a non-speaker of German that "Storm", not "Assault" (Angriff) is the better translation for "Sturm" (theyre cognates!).

If you look at the wiki article on assault rifles, you'll find that Hitler is believed to have been the one who mandated "Sturmgewehr" as the name of the weapon type rather than "Angriffgewehr" to agree with his other choices (Sturmabteilung (Storm Unit) etc. He evidently liked the connotative power of "Storm", and of course it's used the same way in English as well (Storm the barricades, etc). 98.118.20.206 (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct – just a mistake. It appears to have been fixed. My apologies. Amccann421 (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

A-Rod Ricky Roy

WORLDWIDE!!!

yooo why delete this contribution to black history?!? here are some reasons why A-Rod Ricky Roy is significant...

1.) He's on iTunes https://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/the-ricky-roy-vision/id1123611020

2.) He's on Spotify!!! https://play.spotify.com/album/3EUEr38Mes09FiBbi3PgGp

3) He's on GooglePlay!!! https://play.google.com/store/music/album?id=Bgcd4rmoztfgn4jj7smlhjngg4u&tid=song-Tyvkg3diq4gtrafw7ljuywqehna&hl=en

4.) He is selling records in multiple stores WORLDWIDE!!!

5.) He's a Canadian that was raised in Compton attended High School with [LAMAR] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RLSM84 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@RLSM84: None of those things indicate notability, according to Wikipedia policy. Existence does not indicate notability. Take a look at our general notability guidelines and guidelines for musical notability. There need to be non-trivial, independent, reliable sources supporting any claims, and the person in question needs to have done notable things. Amccann421 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

WHAT IGNORANT PEOPLE THINK IS INSIGNIFICANT!!!!

Thats bullshitt foreal you over here wanna perserve the memory of WHITE "SERIAL KILLERS" and WHITE "RAPIST's" ... you as an individual BUSTER may not understand the SIGNIFICANCE of "A-Rod Ricky Roy" to COMPTON and other BLACK COMMUNITIES... He's a role model for every kids that attends school in the CUSD (Compton Unified School District) Coaching baseball and donating $183,000 checks to Hospitals!!!! WHAT THE HELL DO YOU DO TO HELP THE WORLD?!?!?!?!?! Besides RECORD CULTURALLY BIAS INFORMATION preserving WHITE PEOPLE!!!

HOW THE F*** IN ANY WAY?!?!? IS DONATING $183,000 to SICK KIDS INSIGNIFICANT !?!?!?!?

If You can look at this and say "that's insignificant!!" then you deserve to be drug into an alley and shot so that maybe

by:

21:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)RLSM84 (talk)a true fan another insignificant black man who's efforts to help the world will be neglected and ignored by retarded idiots who don't understand what's truly significant21:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)21:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)21:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)~

@RLSM84: No personal attacks. You are not being civil. Wikipedia is not biased towards anyone, and if you think it is, yelling about it certainly won't change anything. Amccann421 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

dont give a damn about wanting to add anything to this HYPOCRITICAL website where being a rapist is more important than saving sick kids....

REAL HERO A-ROD RICKY ROY

21:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)21:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)~~Disgusted BLACK MAN OFEENDED by YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SEX-OFFenders and NEGLECT of REAL HEROS21:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)RLSM84 (talk)

CharlesManson

William_Lynch_speech

Timothy_McVeigh

but a guy who saves children's hospitals donating ain't "SIGNIFICANT"

SmH

"A-ROD RICKY ROY" Is a HERO and I FEEL SORRY FOR YOUR CHILDREN... because you've all forgotten what's really IMPORTANT!!!

22:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)RLSM84 (talk)OVERLOOKED RIGHTIOUSNESS22:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)22:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)~~

 User blocked. Amccann421 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wat. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 03:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Amccann421! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Thank you! Amccann421 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Eric Geary

My recent attempt to write an article about Eric Geary was deleted, and without significant justification. The information being provided was creditable, valid, notable, and verifiable; but only if provided enough time to actually produce the complete article. Even under the speedy deletion warning; it advises that no deletion is necessary if the article is going to be fixed. I am requesting for the content to be restored or provide, or at least temporarily undeleted for corrective actions to be conducted.Geary4YCC (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Geary4YCC: I cannot help you, as I am not an admin. The admin who last deleted the article is KrakatoaKatie – she's the one you need to talk to. You could also make an undeletion request. I would say your odds of undeletion aren't great, as the article has repeatedly been deleted for a variety of reasons. Amccann421 (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. @Geary4YCC: The page was deleted because local candidates are not notable, unless there is reliable secondary coverage from multiple sources. The page didn't have that. You've created it three times and have failed to provide reliable sources each time. You can work on it in your sandbox if you like, but I will not undelete the page and I will not unprotect it until a draft meets WP:POLITICIAN. Katie^talk 02:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

A pie for you!

For your tireless work here. If you don't like it, throw it to one of those garden-variety vandals. In. The. Face. Clubjustin Talkosphere 13:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Clubjustin: I think I'll hang onto it for now, but we'll see if any vandals show up. Thanks. Amccann421 (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ed Koch

It is completely inappropriate that my correction is deleted for want of a citation, but the original, incorrect/incomplete information is left to stand without any citation of it's own. If you wanted to be rigorous then add some rigor to the original or at least look at the error. Anyway deleting correct information blindly because it lacks a citation is stupid. Say that a citation is needed...

That Koch won both party nominations in his second election is a commonly known fact to any New Yorker, that is included in Koch's own bio on Wikipedia, as well as widely available online. Here are just a few things that google shows immediately:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/04/ed-koch-new-york-mayor http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/51316/five-reasons-mayor-ed-koch-was-king-new-york

Just because I don't grok wikipedia's crappy ui well enough to figure out how the damn citation thing works, or where it will randomly be needed shouldn't mean that I shouldn't be able to fix glaring omissions/errors/misrepresentations of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.113.6 (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Colleen O'Shaughnessey's page

Hi there!

I found your name here on Colleen's page. I need help making changes for her! Can you help me?

I need to post a newer photo...

Let me know, thank you!

Johanna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowerfetish (talk • contribs) 21:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Want to help test advanced new tools planned for Recent Changes?

I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re a very active Twinkle user (top 25, actually!). The WMF Collaboration team is working on new tools that we hope will be useful to people engaged in reviewing recent changes, fighting vandalism or supporting new users. We want to test them for usability with editors who are experienced with relevant wiki work. If you’re interested in helping to shape this new technology—we’d like to hear from you.

The testing should take about an hour, will be conducted online, and will take place during the next few weeks. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org with the subject line Twinkle User. Include the following information:

• Username
• Email where we can reach you
• Your city or time zone
• Best time to talk to you
• Your primary use of Twinkle or Recent Changes (e.g., reviewing recent changes, reviewing with a particular focus (specify), anti-vandalism, new-page review, welcoming new users, etc.)

Thanks! Dchen (WMF) (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)