User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com/Archive 15

School article renaming

I noticed that you've renamed several schools named after saints by either removing the period after St or by expanding St. to Saint. Coulld you explain what you are doing?--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: Just trying to keep up with [non US/non-Canada] MOS consistency as best I can (see [1], [2]). Quis separabit? 23:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rms125a@hotmail.com: I'm continuing this discussion because I am confused as to how what you cited above is "[keeping] up with [non US/non-Canada] MOS consistency as best [you] can". Can you actually explain? I don't know why you did not include any summary explanation when you moved these pages. I looked at MOS:SAINTS and it didn't really clear this up. Are we really going to be arbitrarily moving pages with complete disregard to the institution's brand and "common English-language usage in reliable sources"? Thanks. Malayy (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as well. I can't see how the two links you provided explain what you've done.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe, @Malayy -- according to WP: ABBREVIATIONS MOS (here), Saint can be either "St." or "St", therefore I am trying to maintain consistency -- some schools are/were "St." (usually by default re North American educational institutions, in my experience as editor since 2005) and others are "St" (more universal, again, in my experience as editor since 2005). I cannot explain it any better than that so you will have to take it to another level if it is that important to you. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Of course consistency should be maintained on Wikipedia, but not at the complete expense of the institution's brand and "common English-language usage in reliable sources". Last time I was reading MOS it explicitly noted not to hardline conform to it, as there are exceptions. I'm not sure if you took the time to research these institutions before bulk moving pages without explanation because some are clearly not uncontested technical moves. So I'm not sure what's with your "if it is that important to [us]". Malayy (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very broad generalisation to say that everyone outside USA uses "St". You need to apply WP:COMMONNAME rather than try to apply a blanket approach.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NICRA

Hey. Since you've been the only person who's shown any interest so far, I thought I'd alert you to some proposals I've made to bring balance to the NICRA article.

It's reasonably lengthy, so I'll not be offended if you don't get a chance to take a look! --75.177.79.101 (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tetchy subject, like everything to do with The Troubles, but I'll take a look. Where is it? DO NOT email to my username email address, that account is long dead. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - it's at the Talk:Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association page.

Also, you might want to take a quick look at my addition to Talk:The Troubles, just now if you have time/inclination. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fresnes Prison

Could you explain why you undid my edits of this page yesterday? I thought the page was a bit muddled before, and putting the WWII captives in chronological order seemed to make sense. You have also removed my addition of Roman Czeniawski for no apparent reason. MrArmstrong2 (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Tenney

Would you have a look at Claudia Tenney? Also Anthony Brindisi if you have a chance. Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Jonathan Banks. Per WP:BLP and specifically WP:DOB, please do not add date-of-birth info to articles about living people, unless the info is widely published in reliable sources. (Please note that we do not consider IMDB a reliable source as it is largely user-contributed content.) Jeh (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A request

You nominated an article I started for deletion - Marcy Borders. I didn't see that AFD until today.

Most contributors recognize that, on a collaborative project, where we all need to cooperate, it is extremely important that we follow the advice of wikidocuments, and long-standing tradition, and leave a heads-up for the individual who started the article we nominated.

Please appreciate that our decisions are supposed to be made by consensus. Can an AFD arrive at a well-informed consensus, when the nominator explicitly discludes the individual who started the article, who is very likely to hold a contrary position? Rhetorical question. Of course not.

One of the policies we are supposed to follow is WP:BATTLEGROUND. When I find that someone nominated an article I started for deletion, didn't tell me, so I didn't have an opportunity to weigh in, and that article ended up being deleted, I feel both furious and betrayed.

I encourage you, in the strongest possible terms, to make sure you properly inform the article creator, if you ever make another nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance template addition to an article 17 months ago

Hi! I was wondering if I could get your input on something from a while ago: Back in January 2017 you placed a more citations needed maintenance template in the St. Edward's University article. A COI editor is now asking in an edit request for changes of theirs to be implemented which they have said would work towards resolving the issues highlighted by your placement of the template. In reviewing their request I raised a question about the original intent of the editor who placed the template (you) because the one you used calls attention to a general lack of references. But the article at the time you placed the template had 29 references (it now has 38) which does not appear, at first glance, to be a lack of references. However, upon closer look, it's evident that many of those references were and still are sources linked to the University itself, and not from outside the University. It's my belief that what you may have meant with your placement of that template 17 months ago was to call attention to the fact that the article needed more non-University-based references, which is a completely valid concern, and makes more sense that that is what you meant by your placement of the template than rather just to ask for sources of any kind. In any event, there is a discussion now going on at Talk:St. Edward's University which would benefit from your input, if you'd like to join in. Thank you in advance for any time you can offer, its much appreciated! SPINTENDO 07:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spintendo: You are correct but that was almost a year and a half ago. Feel free, unless administrators state otherwise in a specific article, to remove article tags which [you feel] are no longer valid if you are confident that they are outdated, and the underlying issue(s) rectified. Thanks for keeping up to date and maintaining the article. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply. I think I'll go ahead then and change the template you added to the third-party maintenance template and re-date it as April 2018, since having references which point to the University's own website appears to remain an issue with that article a year and a half after you first pointed them out. Thank you again for your help! Regards, SPINTENDO 17:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]