User talk:FallingGravity/Archive 3

DYK for William Vitarelli

On 20 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Vitarelli, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that William Vitarelli led community and educational projects in Micronesia after winning a US Supreme Court case about his alleged associations with the Communist Party USA? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Vitarelli. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, William Vitarelli), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Sunshine Hotel

Hello! Your submission of Sunshine Hotel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sunshine Hotel

On 26 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sunshine Hotel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sunshine Hotel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sunshine Hotel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

Thank you so much for creating draft for Art Supawatt Purdy. I was about to give up. I spent the last 4 hours looking at the articles of actresses who stared opposite him to learn what mistakes I've made why those articles arent deleted (after been nominated for deletion but still not deleted with little to no RC) or subjected to notability issues. For example:
Worarat Suwannarat
Sririta Jensen
Mai Charoenpura
From those articles, I learned that there're a lot more of articles like that for Thai actors and actress. Most do not even have any reliable references but yet they are not deleted. Could you please help me shine a light on this? I mean if you tell me that they're paid articles, or if they're an articles of actors in a company who donates to Wikipedia a lot...or something like that...like deals under the table, then I would stop learning from wrong examples. I dont know where to get the answers so I can move on because right now I feel like I'm being picked on.
Meanwhile I will find ways to improve this article. Can I ask you to look over an see if it ready? I have scanned those magazine I used as refereence as per Tokyogirl request if they are legit, but have not had a chance to do becasue im busy at work this wekk. So can I send to you? Please advise. Thank you so so much for taking the time and do this for me.Greekadoniz (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasatch Front Wicnic 2016

Please join the discussion regarding a Wasatch Front Wicnic for 2016. We'd love to have you come. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref bunching

Please refrain from making the wiki ref markup unreadable as you did in this edit.[1] Your skills in doing so might be better used by entering the International Obfuscated C Code Contest. -- Kendrick7^talk 13:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kendrick7: I'm guessing what counts as "unreadable" markup is subjective. Nevertheless, I have now grouped the refs under the {{Reflist}} without sacrificing your formatting. I hope you still find the article readable. FallingGravity (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Both for being a Micronesianist, and for reviewing Douglass Hoffstaedter. I am more of a poly- and melanisiast, but I do own the complete grammar of the IP languages. Quite fascinating. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Killing of Harambe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post

Since when is the NYP not a reliable source? I must have missed the breaking news. I guess CNN and the New York Times, being thoroughly and completely nonpartisan organs of the media, are still OK. Please, let's not get into an edit war and let's discuss the matter civilly. If what you meant was something like "This has problems with WP:BLPSOURCES at the moment and needs more mainstream coverage" (as another editor put it), well that's a little different than demeaning and disqualifying the source entirely. Please clarify. Replying here is fine. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 3 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Burns (televangelist)

Why are you removing sourced and NPOV material? As per [2]. We have to be careful of WP:BLP violations. Not only according to the source is the National Guard a reserve component of the Army but CNN stated "in August 2016, those longstanding claims in his biography were disproved after CNN fact-checked them." It wasn't disproved CNN is wrong on the fact. I did see your edits have had some dipping on the political side [3] [4], [5] and [6] . I while chime in an admin for an opinion. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You can and will be blocked if you engage in an edit war.

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BABY on Mark Burns (televangelist)?

Hello,

It seems you may misunderstand WP:BABY, as you applied it on Mark Burns (televangelist). When you make multiple changes in a single edit, as you did here, you make it more difficult to address specific problems. For example, you reverted this edit of mine with no explanation, mixing it in with your other changes. Please explain why you reverted my fix of an obvious error.

Also, in future, it may be useful if you make smaller edits, per WP:OWNFEET. Then if editors have issues, they aren't tempted to revert your entire edit. X4n6 (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@X4n6: Well, your reversion was given with the edit summary "Rs infobox removal & repaired format errors." I assumed that was because I had, through a series of edit conflicts, added the birth_date parameter twice. So when I reverted your revert of my edit, I took care not to revert the duplicated parameter. If you have problems with the other stuff I changed then feel free to chime in on the active discussion on the talk page. Or you can raise them here, I don't mind. ^Falling_Gravity 07:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the confusion. Once again, perhaps moving forward it's wiser to make smaller edits. Also keep in mind, per WP:BOLD, editors won't necessarily feel the need to "pre-clear" their edits on talk pages - or even check there for current discussions. All the more reason for smaller edits and hopefully, less confusion. X4n6 (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Possible BLP Violations

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Possible BLP Violations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AP ref in Donald J. Trump Foundation

You're right that it's not about the TF -- I added it mostly to provide the context of news coverage. There have been quite a few editorials along the lines of "Trump's foundation is the scandalous one, not Clinton's", and even the Clinton campaign has directly compared the two. [7] I'm not hugely invested in having that in the article but thought some way of providing a bit of background for the surge in news coverage might be helpful.--Eloquence * 21:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Trump Foundation was briefly in the news back in June when the Trump University case started to pick up steam in the media. The most recent media coverage derives from the fine the Trump Foundation had to pay for breaking non-profit donation rules. It may be possible that the IRS was influenced by the AP story, but to imply so would be original research. However, like you said, the two stories did converge in this election cycle, though I think we'd need better sourcing to determine how the two stories influenced one another. ^Falling_Gravity 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page

Please do not remove messages I have posted to help improve the article. Read WP:TALK#USE--75.66.124.118 (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLPTALK. ^Falling_Gravity 02:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Read WP:BLP. "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. .... BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." General Ization ^Talk 02:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

school school

school school - you are correct thank you, my mistake--2600:8800:FF04:C00:4C61:46F5:F7F2:F9EF (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Edmund Kalau

On 13 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Edmund Kalau, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after Edmund Kalau (pictured) spent his childhood in the Hitler Youth and flew in the Luftwaffe during World War II, he converted to Christianity and served in Palau and Yap in the Liebenzell Mission? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edmund Kalau. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Edmund Kalau), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drumpf

Crap, I screwed up. My browser has a joke plug=in which changes "Drumpf" to "Drumpf" (a John Oliver joke), which apparently affects Wikipedia editing. Would you mind undoing them until I figure out how to turn it off? Because even undoing it through my browser repeats the mistake. --Calton | Talk 18:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See? I originally wrote "T-R-U-M-P" above, but my browser changed it AFTER I pressed "SAVE". --Calton | Talk 18:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, that's what I assumed because I was aware about the browser extension. ^Falling_Gravity 18:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. I haven't edited anything Trump-related all year, so this has never come up for me. I turned off the plug-in -- that joke was getting old, anyways -- so that shouldn't happen going forward.

Trump Trump Trump. TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP. trump trump trump.

Let's see if it works properly now. --Calton | Talk 18:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for coming to our Mormon Foremothers edit-a-thon last Friday. The references of some of the pages look much better now! -Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guccifer 2.0

I'm not impressed with this [8]. You were right to change the CF thing--if CF didn't actually use that term. But that Ars Technica source you yourself added called it "propaganda", full stop, as have countless other reliable sources. So no need to water it down. The net effect was a POV-push. Geogene (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Roman Tmetuchl

Hello! Your submission of Roman Tmetuchl at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aheezay

I have spoken to groups of editors who have informed me you have a bad habit of engaging in pro-partisan "editing wars" and interestingly enough, that that behaviour can result in a ban, I also forwarded them the information and sources I intend to place back on the podesta emails page and they have informed me that the edits arent in violation of any statutes and should not be removed

I strongly suggest you drop this habit, but if not, its your ban, not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheezay (talk • contribs) 13:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]