User talk:Keri/Archive 1

Archive 1

RPP

There is this unlogged in user has been adding these false content on the Casper (film) page. I was hoping that someone will keep it protected from that user. DonJakes (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@DonJakes: See RPP here. Keri (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks DonJakes (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

No wuckin' furries. Keri (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Gareth Peirce

Thanks for explaining your editing. As far as her legal name, according to this website, it is, in fact Jean Gareth Peirce. Quis separabit? 23:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Dan Johnson (journalist)

Many thanks for taking up the baton in the relay race that is the Dan Johnson (journalist) article. I found, but haven't yet had the chance to incorporate a ref to, this:

Merger discussion for Sports Direct

An article that you have been involved in editing—Sports Direct—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. zazpot (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Unequal application of rules

Hi Keri, you flagged one of my comments for being uncivil, presumably because I asserted another user was ignorant. At the same time, I only said that in direct responding to a user who insulted me. Are you also going to remove his comments? It is unclear why mine would be removed but his would not. MHP Huck (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Your comment was directed at a specific editor, calling them an idiot. That is a personal attack. Flap zappa's sweeping rudeness towards "so many snowflakes" may have been ill-mannered but was not directed at a particular editor. Keri (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's be specific. I called him ignorant - which he was objectively by his sweeping generalization which was directed at me. I did not, however, call him an idiot. Since his generalization was clearly insulting and directed at me, I think you've shown bias here. MHP Huck (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Quote: "man... you are an idiot" (my emphasis). I suggest you stop wasting my time with your battleground behaviour. Keri (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Keri. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Saltley Gate

Hello, Keri. Thanks for your message. I am happy with that, and agree that it makes sense.

I was actually adding some material to do with the Lofthouse Disaster, and noticed the part of Saltley Gate in passing. Epa101 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Flint water crisis

Hi there, Keri. I'm a medical student with Michigan State University who is working with the Hurley Medical Center pediatric residency program right now. I deleted the "MPH" because Dr. Mona is not the "MPH program director," but rather the residency (post-MD training) program director. The instance of MPH in this context is misleading and confusing, which is the reason I deleted it. 207.179.124.176 (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@207.179.124.176: Thanks for the explanation; I've reinstated your edit, with a pointer to this discussion. Best luck with your future study and endeavours. Keri (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Loop Testing

Hi, I may have removed that accidentally. Please tell me if the article needs further improvement, or why you have flagged it for removal. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awaisraad (talk • contribs) 17:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article Thomas Mair (murderer)

Hello, Keri. As a prominent contributor to Thomas Mair (murderer), you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer), in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 16:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hammersmith nudes murders

I am pleased to see the improvements you are making to this page (including the renaming of it). I am very interested in this case but there's something I wanted to ask you. I see you changed 'Brian Cushway' to 'Andrew John Cushway' and I had wondered about this before. In his cited article about David Seabrook, Stewart Home said that he worked out the identity of the ex-policeman whom Seabrook alluded to in his book as being considered by the police as a possible Nudes suspect. Seabrook didn't name Cushway, but Home says he worked out his identity by searching The Times archive for a news story fitting the details Seabrook gave about a London policeman who was prosecuted in 1962 for carrying out a series of burglaries. Home said he found such a story and the man's name was Andrew John Cushway. I am unclear why it said Brian Cushway before (and I have seen the name given as Brian on message boards as well). I guess someone made a mistake at some point and it was then copied elsewhere, including the addition to Wikipedia. I notice that you have been adding citations to reports in The Times and I wondered if you would mind looking for the 1962 Cushway report to confirm that the name as given by Home is correct. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the archive myself. Dubmill (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, yes, it is "Andrew John". I had looked up the Times report myself, and then doubled back to check Stewart Homes. An ip editor had wrongly used "Brian" back in 2012. The 1962 article ("Prison For 'Black Sheep' Detective" 30 November 1962; page 7) starts: "A detective in the Metropolitan Police, Andrew John Cushway, who was a misfit with his colleagues, broke into premises to create work for others..." Keri (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dubmill (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Page: Timothy Giardina Response to Edit Warring allegation

Would agree to edit of info box change of rank from Vice Admiral to Rear Admiral. Edit was not intended to mislead readers but was made to reflect the rank of Rear Admiral Giardina's pictured uniform and rank at time of picture. Additional edits were made to reflect accurate reporting of information and final outcome of Admiral Giardina's case in a less biased to guilt format as pages should be factual and reflect and unbiased view. There is no dispute regarding the Admiral's final retired rank of Rear Admiral Giardina as listed in several areas on the page. The former edits did list all of the pertinent information including the final outcome of the case against Rear Admiral Giardina. Awards added from Official Navy Bio. Not the same user as the IP address aforementioned in allegation of Edit warring. --DC22201 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Elm Guest House

Seriously, can you tone it down a little? I don't see any "powerful strand of recalcitrance among some editors" - quite the reverse, I see a willingness among editors who have been involved with this article to acknowledge that the article needs to be reviewed and edited - and, possibly, its title changed - in the light of current thinking. Not assuming good faith in other editors tends not to be the most productive course of action, in my experience. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Tone it down"?? I've been raising this issue since last October. Many of the article's points have been discredited for almost a year. Some of the people mentioned in it are living persons. It's only out of "respect" for other editors that I haven't already removed most of the dross. Keri (t · c) 12:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and the fact that attempts to correct the article are likely to lead to allegations of being a paedophile... Keri (t · c) 13:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Fine. But it would help if you either made specific rather than general suggestions as to what changes should be made... or just go ahead and do it yourself, taking due account of the generally helpful comments that other editors are making. Even adding tags to the article might, in this case, take the process forward in a more positive way than merely slagging off other good faith editors. I'm surprised that you would take any notice of vandal IPs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Keri! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 22:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Keri!

Happy New Year!

Keri,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Keri. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)