User talk:Display name 99/Archive 3

A year ago ...
19th-century; US history
	... you were recipient; no. 2034 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Display name 99. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pope Miltiades

Thank you very much. Really I thought it will take months for someone to take it for a review. Much appreciate it. Thanks! And for sure, I will repeat the nomination for DYK, as it failed to pass since it wasn't a 5x expansion. :) --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I know I've been a bit of a bother, but I wanted you to know that your work and great patience with me and overall on Wikipedia does not go unnoticed Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Eddie891, you've been fine. It's been a pleasure working with you as both a reviewer and a nominator. I look forward to hopefully doing so again in the future. Display name 99 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Minerve

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Minerve you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Minerve

The article Siege of Minerve you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Minerve for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

huh?

Are you positing that this isn't a sentence, so a terminal period isn't needed? Because without an edit summary this looks like unexplained blanking and I normally hand out templated warnings for stuff like that. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)

Chris troutman, I normally use edit summaries, but in this case didn't because I had done the same thing in that exact article before. I guess I should've included one. My apologies. Basically, you have guessed correctly. A caption that is not a complete sentence should not have punctuation. If you want this verified, please go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions and then "Formatting and punctuation." Hopefully that clarifies everything. Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Your ping didn't work. (You have to sign your comment in the same edit as your ping.) You can go through your preferences so the interface will warn you about broken pings. Your explanation is what I figured, which is why I didn't revert you. Others doing countervandalism are inherently drive-by editors, so they might not be so careful. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Million Award

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Andrew Jackson (estimated annual readership: 7006270000000000000♠2,700,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Are you aware of this article? [1] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. After looking it over, I'm not certain that this even needs its own article. The article itself is definitely one-sided. I don't think I'll worry about it right now. I don't even make major edits to contemporary political articles very often. And when I do, it often ends up looking a little bit like what we're seeing at the Hogg bio. I think I'll mostly leave this one alone, but thank you for bringing it to my attention. If you or somebody else nominates it for deletion or tries to add something to balance out the coverage, there's a good chance I'd support it. Not sure how successful you'd be though. Display name 99 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the article probably shouldn't exist. The editing of it and reversions of edits by particular editors does show a pattern, when you take another particular article into consideration. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bank War

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bank War you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GreenMeansGo -- GreenMeansGo (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bank War

The article Bank War you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Bank War for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GreenMeansGo -- GreenMeansGo (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

"Contaldo80 first inferred, with no evidence, that the IP user was my sockpuppet." At what stage did I infer that a particular IP User was YOUR sockpuppet? Please be careful about making accusations and claims that are not supported by the facts. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"Please be more careful about insulting the intelligence of other editors by expecting them to believe that you obviously intended to say is somehow not really what you meant. Thanks." Why do I need to be careful about insulting someone's intelligence? Is there wikipedia guidance on that? Don't second guess anything - please keep to the facts, and ensure your interactions remain civil. I won't continue to be threatened or intimidated. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for consensus on capitalization of "independent"

Hi, you may be able to provide insight on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government#Stylistic question about capitalization of "independent" in an infobox. It's clear that "independent" should not be capitalized in a sentence (except if it's the first word), as is the usage in Independent politician, because it is a common noun and not a proper noun, like Republican. Should it be capitalized in an infobox or when it's abreviated in parentheses, i.e. Bernie Sanders (i) vs Bernie Sanders (I)? I look forward to your thoughts at the talk page, above. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

John Adams

I'd already posted on the talk page before you reverted...perhaps join in the discussion? Giant Snowman 17:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Photian schism

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Photian schism you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Photian schism

The article Photian schism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Photian schism for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

John Adams again

I just wanted to express my appreciation for your contributions to that article. I was always dumbstruck why it was so short in comparison with that of Washington and Jefferson and you've added much information of great value. Obviously you received some flack and I'm no stranger to controversy over adding content, but keep doing your thing. - Informant16 June 28, 2018

Informant16, thank you for the message. I appreciate it. Adams always seems to get the short straw, even on this wiki. Hopefully we can change that. Display name 99 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed you've done an excellent job with Adams! I especially like the lede. keep it up! Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Rjensen, thank you for the note. I deeply appreciate it, especially after being subjected to an unprovoked attack on my editing at the article talk page despite all my hard work. Anyway, I nominated Adams for FAC yesterday and am receiving a lot of complaints about the length. I don't entirely agree with them, but the fact is that I'm going to have to shorten the article in order to have it pass the review. I'm afraid the "Conservatism" section you added about a week or so ago might have to go. In trying to shorten the article to meet the demands of the reviewers, I think it's best to retain the more substantive analysis of Adams's political writings and let that speak for itself and keep quotations from historians to a minimum. I do like the part about "ordered liberty" and am in favor of moving an abbreviated version of that into the "Accusations of monarchism" section. It could do well to counterbalance the accusations that he was a monarchist by stressing a more moderate theme of both republican liberty and order. I just thought I'd let you know and receive your input. Display name 99 (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

the two main reasons Adams deserves a long article are his work for independence and his establishing moderate conservative policies (in opposition to Hamilton & Jefferson). I suggest: Cut the diplomacy instead--or spin that off into a new article on the Diplomacy of John Adams. Rjensen (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Diplomatic service of John Adams

Hey! Your new page is awesome (Adams is one of my favorite presidents!), but I think you need to give attribution to https://alchetron.com/John-Adams via CC BY-SA 3.0 per this copyvio search. I'm not the best with copyright info and usually pass it off to someone else, and was hoping whoever reviewed your article yesterday would have addressed this, but in any case I figured I'd let you know. (And if I'm wrong about this please ping me back and let me know!) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Semmendinger. Thank you for your note and compliment. If you look at the bottom of the article, you'll see that it cites the John Adams article on Wikipedia as its source. The entire article is a copy of a version of the main John Adams page. There are some websites which for whatever reason copy Wikipedia articles word for word, and this appears to be one of them. Display name 99 (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I noticed that page cited Wikipedia as well, was just unfamiliar with the name. Usually I see similar pages like Revolvy, etc, hopefully the writer of the copyvio detector whitelists that site so it doesn't show up again. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

Hello, I just wanted to clarify some apparent misunderstandings. I would first like to commend you on keeping a watch on these "higher grade" articles. I have seen too many that have been delisted because of continued edits that eventually degrade the article. You also seem to be open to discussions that could make improvements.

A problem I have been running into is not the citation "styles", that are broadly acceptable on individual articles, but the presentations in sections and subsections. You misinterpreted the comments on "References". It is a section, and should be as exampled by WP:ASL with the "reflist" included, but is sometimes presented as "Notes", Sources, or by various other names. The confusion comes in when the footnotes are expanded to include a multitude of listings including "Primary sources", "secondary sources", and others that follow no consistent formatting and often times conflict with other known formatting styles that are largely followed.

I am not advocating changing any "style" just following some standards so there is not confusion. The article Horace Greeley uses "Notes and references" section with source related subsections that seems well laid out. To me there is an issue with the "Books by Greeley" section placed above the "Further reading" section though. If readers expect to find this listed first in the appendices per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, and new users are directed by examples in the beginners guide to MOS (Appendix sections), under a "Works or publications" section but many times a "Bibliography" section is used. Considering this then the "Books by Greeley" is out of place.

My comments were in agreement (considering your edit) that "subsections" be used under "References" that should be a section (you used biography that I guess is fine) and as such that "Bibliography" as a subsection would not be out of place or confused with a "Works" (Bibliography) section.

You stated, "Another problem is that you have yet to show how there is a type of bibliography which does not include sources, which means that it's unnecessary to specific that a Bibliography is for sources, because that's the only kind that exists."

Multiple dictionaries give the definitions of bibliography:
- 1)-"A list of the books of a specific author or publisher, or on a specific subject. ("a bibliography of his publications")". This is commonly placed in a "Works" section (for biographies only) per MOS/layout, but also common as a "Bibliography" section, and not related to sourcing.
- 2)- "A list of the books referred to in a scholarly work, usually printed as an appendix."

The confusion is that "Bibliography" probably shouldn't be used in the "Works" section and is not recommended per MOS:BIB but it is. To avoid confusion it seems far more appropriate, if "Bibliography" is used relating to sourcing, that it be a subsection. I suppose we could start changing "Bibliography" sections (concerning biographical works) to "Works" (per MOS) to effect incremental changes but that would likely be a lot of articles.

The entire purpose of section headings and subsections (hierarchy) is to group related subjects but Wikipedia is vague on this especially concerning sourcing footnotes. To avoid confusion and clutter we could group footnotes (this seems to be rare) which would be more practical.

My goal is not to "degrade" any article and work within consensus. You can look at edits on the talk page of Horace Greeley where I think new additions in the lead can be corrected. I have been working in the area of appendices a long time. Right, wrong, or indifferent, this has helped result in the creation of Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites to help stop the inundation of certain sites in the external links, as well as "external links sourcing only" and long runaway lists.

If small changes can be made in attempts to have some consistency on articles then to me that is a good thing. On GA and FA articles I have been addressing appendices, mostly "External links" that seems to me to be getting out of hand, but also some improvements in the appendices sections in general. I have found GA and FA articles with up to 30 "Further readings" and "External links", usually the result of incremental additions, with no cleanup. The Andrew Jackson article has 10. To me that is too many but I have mostly been focusing on severely long lists.

If you run across any articles I edit I am always open to discussion so please don't think any of my comments (possibly dry) as meaning to be rude or disrespectful. I hope I have given sufficient reasoning for my edits and comments but feel free to approach me with any concerns. questions, or comments. You may know of or consider a better approach. Otr500 (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank J. Vondersaar

You can't do that Display name 99. You are not an administrator. It's not up to you to police pages. My contribution to that discussion is perfectly valid. I have not broken any rules. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Any editor, administrator or not, is free to offer his or her thoughts on ANI pages or anywhere else. My opinion is that the fact that you showed up to propose a "Strong delete" on an article despite the fact that, according to Briancua, you haven't participated in any AfD discussions other than for your own article during your previous 1,000 edits (you haven't disputed that as far as I can tell) is highly questionable and might be the beginnings of a pattern of hounding. The final decision on whether to give a warning or enforce sanctions is left to any uninvolved admin, but in an ANI thread such as this it's anyone's legitimate right to offer their thoughts and you can't force me to stop. Display name 99 (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi. It would be good, also per Help:Edit summary, if you dedicate the edit summary to summarize what you did instead of addressing other editors as you did in the article Carlo Maria Viganò. Thinker78 (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I could've added "Removing maintenance tags" to the beginning to explain what I did. But that is comparatively inconsequential. More importantly, any time an editor reverts another editor, it is that editor's responsibility to provide a valid reason. My edit summary explained WHY I made the change, which is what is most important. Display name 99 (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Your addition to William E. Lori has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Precious

19th-century US history

Thank you for quality articles such as John C. Calhoun, John C. Breckinridge, Andrew Jackson and John Adams, for Saint Paul Catholic Church (Ellicott City, Maryland), for precise edit summaries and dedicated reviewing, - William, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Grow up

It's unfortunate that there is an entire generation of children and young adults who were raised to believe that everything they do is right. Someone needs to provide guidance to this generation to let them know they aren't the center of the universe. Listen to your wiser elders. 32.218.43.187 (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ummm...whaaaat???? Display name 99 (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That is weird. I want to thank you for your work on the Presidents. Well done, pal. Hoppyh (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Jim Towey

@Display name 99: Hi, I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at an article I've been working on, Jim Towey, which is currently up for peer review. Towey worked as a Florida politician and volunteered as Mother Teresa's lawyer in the eighties and nineties; he worked in the White House as director of the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives during the Bush presidency, overseeing federal support of religious social services; he currently works as a Catholic university president. He also played a small part in the McCarrick/Vigano affair: he issued a statement strongly condemning the first Vigano letter, which caused some turmoil among Catholics. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on improving the article's presentation of both his political record and his religious involvement. Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Genericusername57. I took a look at the article and most closely examined the section on the Vigano letter since that's what I am most familiar with. First of all, why is it called a "Rift statement?" I don't understand what that means. Secondly, Vigano alleged that Benedict XVI placed some sort of sanctions or informal restrictions on McCarrick. The article doesn't say that, and I think it could do with a little bit more background there, maybe a sentence or less, just making clear that Benedict authorized the restrictions and Francis did not enforce them. Finally, the article says that "Towey characterized the Viganò allegations as baseless, calculated to harm the reputation of the pope, and founded upon a flawed understanding of religious conservatism." Everything after "as" reads like a quote. If it is a direct quote or contains actual language that he made us of, it obviously needs quotation marks. If it isn't, I think it would be best to replace some or all of that with specific words or phrases that he used in order to give the reader the best impression. I'd also like to hear if there were any supportive reactions to his statement, and if you can include direct quotes from people either supporting or criticizing his letter, that would be very good.

As for the rest of the article, parts of it, especially the first two sections under "Political career," look like they could do with some expansion, although this isn't really something I know much about. I also think that the St. Vincent biography webpage is perfectly fine to use and therefore disagree with the decision to add cleanup banners to those two citations. That's about all I have time for but I hope it helps. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion nomination for Boniface Ramsey

Display name 99, I've nominated the Boniface Ramsey article for deletion. If you have an opinion on this, I hope you will comment at its AFD page. Whichever side you are on, I value your opinion based on your excellent edits to the pages we've both been working on. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Since you made an eloquent argument for "keep", you might find the following article helpful! https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/case-theodore-mccarrick It clarifies some points and even has some biographical info about B.R. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That FAC talk thread

Although it has been hatted, archiving is probably best. It’s what happens at ANI when a discussion has been closed, and there is no benefit to anyone in having it hanging round the talk page. If there is a need for it to teams in, its best that an FA co-ord makes the decision on whether to do it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Display name 99. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Display name 99. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Adams revert

I know you’re trying to get this to FA. I was just trying in good faith to make an edit in the Stamp Act section—my poor attempt to improve the reading. I don’t want to create more work for you; that’s a challenge in copy editing, trying to tweak the reading while maintaining accuracy. I am reluctant to contribute with this revert though, so I will leave you to it. If I can help with a particular issue, of course I am happy to. Just let me know. Good luck with the nom. See WP:RV (the revert is reserved for vandalous or bad faith edits). Cheers. Hoppyh (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hoppyh, I did not mean to imply with the revert that your edits to the article were not of value. Quite the contrary. Over the past week or so, you have made probably dozens of edits to the article. This is the first one that I had any problem with at all. I looked over some of the other ones and I found all of them to be improvements. In numerous cases, I didn't check your edits at all because, having interacted with you before, I trusted that they would be beneficial. In this case, I simply found that the copyediting left the content slightly worse off than before. I absolutely want you to continue your edits to the Adams article because it is clear that they have made it better. One edit that I found slightly problematic out of probably the 30 or 40 that you have made over the past month is really no big deal. And for the record, the policy that you linked to says that the revert can be used against good-faith edits as long as their is a detailed summary and careful consideration. But to the point, your edits to the article have had significant value. If they are to cease, I don't want this to be the cause of it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Pal. Thanks for your very thoughtful reply—it is indeed my intent only to help. You know better than I, but I would hold the revert in your quiver for when it’s really needed, despite it’s efficiency. Grow up and get back to work! Just teasing. My wife saw your self-descriptions and wants to adopt you as her 10th grandchild. Hoppyh (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I put JA’s Massacre quote to work a couple weeks ago—sent it to a newspaper editor I know and he used it in commentary re recent events. Way to go JA, right on point. Thought you’d like hearing about that.Hoppyh (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed the FA promotion, and I want to congratulate you on your hard work making it happen. I am proud to have been a part of it and glad you are around to lead the way. Merry Christmas! Hoppyh (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hoppyh, thank you very much. As the one responsible for bringing the article to GA status, you deserve a substantial amount of the credit yourself. Thank you for leaving me such a solid foundation to start. Display name 99 (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, pal. My wife still wants to adopt you. Hoppyh (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Calhoun

I thought if Lost Cause of the Confederacy is an OK category, why isn’t pro-confederate writers also OK, since the years after his death are less? Please explain. Also, can’t someone be pro-Confederate before the Confederacy was created? Blacks could be pro-freedom without ever experiencing it. One could be pro-independence (of a colony) but still die before that dream is realized. deisenbe (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Deisenbe, Calhoun did not directly advocate secession. He threatened it repeatedly but at no point plainly said "This is the time to do it." I think there are some historians who even make the argument that Calhoun would have actually preferred for the South to remain in the Union, but used secession as a tactic, thinking that by threatening it, he could get the North to consent to Southern demands. As for the Lost Cause category, I did not know that he was listed in that category and have decided to remove him. The Lost Cause is a post-Civil war phenomenon and all other individuals listed in that category are people who wrote about the Antebellum South and the Civil War after the war was already over. Just looking over the list of people in the category, it's obvious that Calhoun's name does not go with the rest. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and engaging in tendentious editing by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Milo Yiannopoulos, you may be blocked from editing.

Bacondrum, I understand that making arguments on a talk page when they cannot be rebutted with reason will now be censured as "disruptive." Since when did that happen? I have violated no policy. I did not re-revert. Since my edit was reverted, I have restricted my changes to the talk page. I also did not add commentary and personal analysis to the article. In fact, I removed it. This warning is therefore entirely inappropriate. I have not done anything outside of Wikipedia rules and you ascribe to me behavior which you and others are actually guilty of. Display name 99 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99 I disagree strongly, you've run headlong into a consensus, have been attempting to skew the page in favour of your own personally beliefs on the matter, you called another editor a Marxist in a derogatory manner, and the debate you are now forcing us to engage in for the umpteenth time has been flogged to death long before you came along. Keep at it if you want and we can let an arbitrator decide. I'm not discussing it with you any further. Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The editor said on his own userpage that he subscribed to a Marxian interpretation of economics. I don't make the things I say up. Display name 99 (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99 And you used it against him or her in a derisive and derogatory manner, don't be so disingenuous. Looks like you are falling into old habits to me, walk away from the argument mate. Bacondrum (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

John Adams

Thank you for fixing it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Year in Review

		The Biography Barnstar
		For your work on Andrew Jackson you are hereby awarded The Biography Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Henry of Lausanne

Hi, I noticed you changed a citation to outside the brackets - the reason it was inside the brackets was because the citation to Costen p. 84 was only for one name, Henry the Petrobrusian - outside the brackets makes it appear that the citation is for all the names within the brackets, which it is not - Costen is the only person I know who calls him Henry the Petrobrusian - everyone else calls him Henry of Lausanne, and some older books Henry the Monk or Deacon - the citation probably isn't needed, but I wanted people unfamiliar with the name to know where it came from and that I wasn't making it up or vandalizing the page - if the citation cannot go inside the brackets, it's probably best to remove it altogether to avoid misunderstanding as to the sources of the other names - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Epinoia, this change has been reverted. Display name 99 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible factual error

Since you were the person who nominated John C. Calhoun for FA, could you tell me if my revert here was correct? L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello L293D. This is incorrect. Jackson launched an invasion of Spanish Florida in 1818 without official authorization, which was highly controversial and caused a diplomatic dispute with Spain. In a meeting of Monroe's cabinet, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams supported Jackson's cause. Secretary of War Calhoun advocated that he be censured. Jackson however was led to believe that Treasury Secretary Crawford, one of three men whom he ran against for president in 1824, was the one who advocated censure. He and Calhoun meanwhile became allies, and Calhoun was elected as his vice president in 1828. Jackson didn't discover the truth until he became president, which was just one of many factors that led to their relationship being destroyed. I've gone ahead and changed this because I don't want people reading the article to get the wrong impression. There's more information on this elsewhere in the Calhoun article as well as in John Eaton (politician), which I nominated for GA, and the Andrew Jackson article, which I nominated for FA. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

TFA appearances of John Adams and John C. Calhoun

Hi, this is to let you know that the above articles will appear as Today's Featured Article on March 4, 2019 (Adams) and March 18, 2019 (Calhoun). The blurb to be used can be found here and here. You are free to edit the blurbs, and may want to watchlist those pagse, as well as WP:ERRORS in case there are queries about it on the day they run, as well as the previous day. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post on my talk. Thanks for building quality content!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thanks for letting me know. Display name 99 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for John Adams, "an American Founding Father who served as the second President of the United States", long and excellent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

... and thank you for John C. Calhoun, "a South Carolina statesman who held a number of high political offices in the United States during the early 19th century, including that of Vice President. He began his career as a modernizer who supported various programs that would increase the power of the Federal government. However, as the sectional divide between the North and South increased, he changed course. He became a strong opponent of protective tariffs, which were harmful to the Southern economy, and a major proponent of nullification and slavery."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Re this edit summary at John Adams...

ToC stands for Table of Contents. Shearonink (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Cathars, consolamentum and endura

Re: your recent edit to Albigensian Crusade, "The body of the article never says that Cathars starved themselves. I haven't encountered any such statement in the sources that I've read."

This is from the Consolamentum article:

According to a few known cases in the latter years of Catharism, the terminally ill would voluntarily undertake a complete fast known as the endura. It was only undertaken when death was clearly inevitable. It was a form of purification and separation from the material world which was controlled by the evil one. They believed that this final sacrifice ensured their reunification with the Good God. (Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie (1975). Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error. Random House/editions Gilmard. ISBN 978-0807615980)

This is from the Catharism article:

Many believers would receive the Consolamentum as death drew near, performing the ritual of liberation at a moment when the heavy obligations of purity required of Perfecti would be temporally short. Some of those who received the sacrament of the consolamentum upon their death-beds may thereafter have shunned further food or drink and, more often and in addition, expose themselves to extreme cold, in order to speed death. This has been termed the endura.(Murray, Alexander. Suicide in the Middle Ages. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-820539-2) It was claimed by some of the church writers that when a Cathar, after receiving the Consolamentum, began to show signs of recovery he or she would be smothered in order to ensure his or her entry into paradise. Other than at such moments of extremis, little evidence exists to suggest this was a common Cathar practice.(Barber, Malcolm (2000), The Cathars: Dualist heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages, Harlow: Longman, ISBN 978-0582256620, pp =103–104)

- just fyi - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Epinoia, thank you very much for making me aware of this. This is important and it's good for me to know. I undid my edit and will add some of this information to the article. Display name 99 (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

- I don't think this needs to be in the article on the Crusade, it's not pertinent to the Crusade itself - I thought you were correct to remove the bit about starvation from the Albigensian Crusade article since the endura, as far as we know, was not a common practice and is not relevant to the Crusade - but do what you think is best - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Epinoia, I don't think there's anything wrong with adding a little bit about it to the "Cathar theology" section. It certainly was considered a strange practice, both then and now, and serves as just one more detail to help the reader understand why Cathars were so alienated from Catholic Europe. I agree that the Catharism article should have more on it and that the primary focus of this article should be on the crusade itself, which you are welcome to add to should you wish. You're clearly knowledgeable enough about the subject. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Wuerl Issue

Can we conform Theodore Edgar McCarrick to the revisions you made to Donald Wuerl, in which you say that "Wuerl faced questions regarding how much he knew about McCarrick's activities." In the McCarrick article, we can say, "Donald Wuerl, McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, faced questions regarding how much he knew about McCarrick's activities. Through a spokesman, he denied that he was aware of McCarrick's misconduct prior to his removal from ministry, which took place on June 20, 2018. However, on January 10, 2019, The Washington Post published a story stating that Wuerl, despite his past denials, was aware of allegations against McCarrick in 2004 and reported them to the Vatican." This would be an immediate fix to comply with WP:BLP, subject to the ongoing RfC on whether to remove the paragraph in its entirey. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, yes, I am fine with changing this sentence. I honestly don't why it's necessary. It means pretty much the same thing and does not substantially change the meaning of the sentence, but if it stops the bickering, I'll go for it. MelanieN, would you mind changing the first sentence of the first Wuerl paragraph from "Donald Wuerl, McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, was suspected by some of having knowledge of McCarrick's activities, allegations which he repeatedly denied." to "Wuerl faced questions regarding how much he knew about McCarrick's activities."? There are still disputed sections of the article, but this would solve one of the issues at least. My only condition as it relates to this section is that the rest of the material be kept where it is. Display name 99 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll be glad to. Happy to see some discussion and consensus going on; keep it up! But it would be better if you held these discussions at the article talk page (which is not protected) so that they are part of the article's history. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --PluniaZ (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Question

I understand people have different opinions and some people may think they are bigoted and some may not. But where is the line? It obviously would not be controversial to say a statement by Adolf Hitler was bigoted. That would not be removed. But why can a statement by a catholic priest that fits the definition of islamaphobia not be called bigoted? Cleg88 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Clegg88, thank you for your question. Actually, a statement describing something said by Adolf Hitler as bigoted would probably be removed in my view because it violates WP:IMPARTIAL. Wikipedia doesn't take sides. We report on what people do and say and that's it. The article includes the quote from Burke, and it's left up to the reader to determine whether that fits the definition of "bigoted." It's fine to include information about what other people say about a person's comment. For example, take these sentences in the "Opposition to homosexuality and same-sex marriage" section:

"Speaking in Oxford after the May 2015 same-sex marriage referendum in Ireland, Burke said that he struggled to understand "any nation redefining marriage ... I mean, this is a defiance of God. It's just incredible. Pagans may have tolerated homosexual behaviours, they never dared to say this was marriage."[82] Archbishop Eamon Martin of Armagh rebuked Burke and called his comments offensive and urged individuals "to try to be respectful and inoffensive in language" wherever possible.[83]

So, it is fine to include a quote from someone else commenting on whether something that a person said or did was acceptable or not. But we at Wikipedia cannot take a position, no matter how obvious it may seem to you. We could quote certain people describing Hitler's views to be xenophobic and evil, but we wouldn't come right out and say that ourselves. It is also Wikipedia policy that all information must be cited to a WP:Reliable source. I do not believe that any of the three sources for that statement describe it as "bigoted." Display name 99 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand what ou are saying. However, when it comes to inddiviuals who are not famous, yet noteworthy enough to warrant a page, what is he criteria for a quality source for a reference? For example, obviously a New York Times article describing somebody in a negative fashion would qualify as a good source. Would a small town paper that has less editorial judgement be allowed as a source? What about a website that purports to be a news source? Where is the wiki guidelines on what is considered a legtamte reference to use as a citation? Cleg88 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please try to keep everything in the same section. It makes things easier to navigate. We could rely on journalistic pieces publisher in The New York Times for factual information. But the NYT like other newspapers, also has opinion pieces which are less than fully reliable. I encourage you to read the page WP:Verifiability, especially the "Neutrality" paragaph. Also, please realize that the standards are stricter when dealing with WP:Biographies of living persons, such as which Burke is. For general information about what qualifies as a reliable source, WP:RS is a good place to start. Display name 99 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment

Hi, I'm not sure if you followed the recent controversy at Talk:Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church/Archive_3#All_five_split_articles_are_published, but in case it interests you I am wikilinking to it. The issue which forced my hand towards the split option was the misuse of rollback. (I will be pinging User:Hyperbolick about the current rfc.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, doing this isn't a good habit. See WP:Canvassing. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

In reference to the above, you will find the interplay at the Criticism of the Catholic Church (which involved a totally separate editor), Anthony Bliss, and Catholic Church and Pandeism articles. This is not something of recent origin. I considered forwarding diffs, but Hyperbolick's frequently blanked Talk page should be sufficient. Manannan67 (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67, I only wish that you or PluniaZ directed me there earlier. I had looked at Hyerbolick's talk page before in response to accusations made by PluniaZ. But not seeing much there and not bothering to check the history, I didn't pay any attention to it. Examining the history demonstrates that Epi has a history of notifying this specific user of discussions, and the fact that they always seem to agree does indicate that he is probably doing it to influence the outcome. Hyper is probably in on it or else they wouldn't keep blanking their page. I think that this fits the definition of spamming as described in the canvassing article. I'll hold off on saying this at the talk page, but I now agree with discounting Hyerbolick's vote. I still favor keeping Epi's because he came here on his own. I'll also go ahead and post notifications at the Catholicism and Biography Wikiproject pages. Pinging PluniaZ so that they are aware of this discussion. Display name 99 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I was attempting to be somewhat discrete and specifically avoided WP:Meat as that might seem rude. Epiphyllumlover has been recognized for his contributions to Lutheranism-related articles. He also seems to cite as a RS the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod which believes Francis is the Anti-Christ. You can appreciate that some editors have come to be somewhat cautious regarding his input. As a wise one once said, "AGF is not a suicide pact." -Cheers. Manannan67 (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover rejected my arguments on the WikiProject Catholicism Talk Page here at 03:09 26 June 2019. His very next edit 23 minutes later is to the Theodore Edgar McCarrick Talk Page here at 03:32 26 June 2019. 30 minutes later he pings Display Name 99 here to whine about the time I deleted several articles he had created, and a minute later he pings his good buddy Hyperbolick to "vote" on the McCarrick dispute. I am happy to defer to the input of the broader community, but not to someone who is simply following me around seeking revenge for the time I deleted his articles. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I’d no knowledge of the dispute before being asked to look at the article, presumedly for my experience. Not to be somebody’s “buddy.” All I know of it. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

McCarrick RfC

Hey, let me know if you are ok with this Diff being used for the next RfC: Proposed Diff. I will wait for the existing RfC to be removed from the Biographies page before sending the new one. It seems like Legobot is the only user that is supposed to be editing that page. Hopefully by this time tomorrow the old RfC will be taken down and I can send the new one. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, sorry for the delayed response. Yes, that diff is fine. Thanks. I guess the only thing that we can agree on now is that hopefully, this new RfC will generate more responses than the first one and lead to a clearer consensus so that we can finally end this. Display name 99 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's also mutually agree to avoid replying to each other's posts in the thread in order to make it easier for people to discern what's going on. Display name 99 (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please. It is my hope that we never reply to each other on that talk page again :p --PluniaZ (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Please remove your request for a third opinion for Talk:Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick. Third opinions are only for disputes between two editors, but this dispute is between you, me and User:Manannan67, and other users have already weighed in as well. --PluniaZ (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I have removed the request at WP:3O because, as Plunia noted, there are more than two involved editors in this dispute. As implied by the name, the Third Opinion Noticeboard is for requesting a third opinion. You are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Plunia, FWIW, there wasn't really a need to request the removal of the request either. 3O requests with regards to disputes with more than two editors should be rejected without any further review being needed. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ and Doniago, Manannan67 declined to vote in the latest RfC. I asked whether he had anything to add before requesting the third opinion, and he said nothing. PluniaZ, when I suggested making a request to WP:Third opinion, you voiced no objection. Your response was incredibly vague. Display name 99 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

When I look at the Talk page I see that other editors have weighed in on both RfCs. In any event, it seems clear to me that more than two editors have been involved in this dispute. I also note that you've made what could be considered personal attacks in the course of those RfCs (your comments to Mathglot). I would encourage you not to re-file at 3O, though I certainly can't stop you from doing so if you believe it may result in a different outcome. If I were in your shoes I might consider opening a case at WP:DRN, or perhaps sculpting a less contentious RfC cooperatively with the editors you disagree with. For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever seen an instance of an editor requesting 3O after an RfC. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Doniago, other editors have weighed in, but none of them have voted on the current version of the paragraphs. In the last RfC, only PluniaZ and I voted. PluniaZ even argued that the only other editor to make an official vote in the RfC prior to this one should have his vote discounted on the basis of some misconduct on his part. While Manannan67 has weighed in, he hasn't voted in either of the last two RfCs and seems to have refrained from taking any definitive positions lately. I've tried DRN previously. We have had three RfCs at this point. I'm not up for a fourth one. 3O was just my latest failed attempt to find a resolution to this disagreement. Oh, and my comments to Matglot were not personal attacks. That editor made three comments on the talk page, and I gave my honest opinion that they weren't helpful, which is hardly exceptionally strong language. Display name 99 (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Display name 99, referring to me being "smart enough" to read into your intentions is absolutely a personal attack. Cut it out. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, the portion of that comment has been struck. Display name 99 (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert V. Remini

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert V. Remini you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources

I encourage you to take a closer look at some of the sources on which you choose to rely:

Figueiredo - personal secretary to a bishop who had been engaging in some manner of inappropriate conduct for over fifteen years, yet inexplicably apparently ceased for the nine months Figueiredo worked for him; or else was so incredibly discreet that his own secretary was totally unaware of rumors that had made it across the river to O'Connor;
Ciolek - files three separate claims, against three different individuals in three separate diocese, at least two which allegedly occurred when he could hardly have been considered a minor. Is this some kind of cottage industry?
Vigano - accusations against him for misappropriation of funds by his siblings; accusations by him of corruption at the Vatican Governorate because he didn't want to leave for America; allegations against everyone re McCarrick wildly inconsistent with his own handling of the matter when he was nuncio.

- any statements by any of these people needs to be taken with more than a teaspoon of salt. They all have their underlying interests As to the media: Oftentimes a purported news site will print a story from the AP or another service virtually verbatim. A google search however, shows a fascinating difference in how various outlets caption their headlines demonstrating their own editorial spin. The institutional bias is there. If you cannot see it, look again. CNA falls far short of CNS. National Catholic Register and National Catholic Reporter are at opposite ends of the spectrum. LATimes is better than NY. Crux is a spinoff of the Boston Globe and has some interest in being perceived as impartial. As I've said before the local Jersey papers are not bad, nor Commonweal or America. Know to whom you are listening and where they're coming from. Manannan67 (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know much about Figueiredo and am not sure when I have ever relied on him. Whatever your personal judgments of Ciolek, the Washington Post treated his claims as credible, so we can hardly ignore him. There are plenty of people who have been sexually abused who weren't minors. McCarrick targeted minors but most of his victims seem to have been adult seminarians. The fact that he states that abuse happened when he was no longer a minor hardly discounts him. You might think that the number of people whom Ciolek has accused makes him unreliable. But that's your own personal opinion and should have no reflection on Wikipedia. The Washington Post, an obvious RS, apparently disagrees with you. The claims made against Vigano by his brother are mere allegations, unproven so far as I know, and totally unrelated to his allegations regarding sexual abuse in the Church. You've made it clear by now that you don't believe that Vigano is credible. For the purposes of editing this encyclopedia, I don't care what you believe. But you shouldn't allow your own opinions to cause you to want to remove content which is supported by reliable sources and relevant to the articles in which they appear. In attempting to discredit him, you've ignored the numerous instances in which at least parts of his allegations seem to match the claims made independently by others. In the case of the article on Cardinal Tobin, you assisted in removing mention of one such case.

I am familiar with the reliability and orientation of the different sources. I'm not sure why you say that LA Times is better than NY. Like its counterparts on the opposite end of the spectrum, Church Militant and LSN, America is too heavily ideologically oriented to be relied on for much of anything except statements made by individuals, and should never be used to assert controversial claims as true. I consider CNA, CNS, Crux, NC Reporter, NC Register, and the Catholic Herald as reliable sources. Some of them do have ideological orientations, but I think it's been shown that they can be depended on for facts. Display name 99 (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

that just shows your own admitted political bias. Manannan67 (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert V. Remini

The article Robert V. Remini you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert V. Remini for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't accuse other editors of bias

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Milo Yiannopoulos. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Bacondrum (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, that was a little strong but the point is valid. Removing content because you find it offensive and hurtful violates Wikipedia policy with regard to neutrality and unbiased editing. Display name 99 (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of bias again? You can't help yourself can you? Adding offensive and hurtful content when it is not due violates Wikipedia policy, as does accusing others of biased editing and suggesting they should not contribute also violates policy. I've violated no policy, however you have. Don't make personal attacks. Bacondrum (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, whether the content is undue or not is a matter of personal opinion, but there is no penalty for adding offensive or hurtful content to articles when it is reliably sourced. Wikipedia is not censored; hence, content that is offensive and hurtful is subject to the same scrutiny as content that isn't. Display name 99 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't accuse others of bias. In regard to publishing offensive material and censorship - read the guidelines: WP:GRATUITOUS, you'll find you are mistaken.

A cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

No hard feelings, just stop accusing others of bias, it's a clear violation of policy: WP:CIVIL Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, no, I did not find that I was mistaken. I request no "special favor" to offensive content nor do I want to include it simply because it is offensive. I only demand that it receive no peculiar disfavor. There is a distinction. The policy said that offensive material is not "exempt from normal inclusion guidelines," which is what I maintained when I said that it was subject to the same scrutiny as other content. Meanwhile, I suggest you take note of the second sentence in the first paragraph: "Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers." Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I removed it because it was undue use of offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable material. "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." I've nothing more to say on the subject, we'll have to agree to disgree. Don't make personal attacks in the future please. Bacondrum (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Raymond Leo Burke

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Raymond Leo Burke you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lingzhi2 -- Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Raymond Leo Burke

The article Raymond Leo Burke you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Raymond Leo Burke for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lingzhi2 -- Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, thank you for your note. I actually had no idea that I'd gotten that, but I appreciate you letting me know. Display name 99 (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)